By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC v. Bridgestone Americas Inc

richardhutnik on 07 October 2012
Kasz216 said:
forevercloud3000 said:
VicViper said:

IMPORTANT for the thread!

Sony comments on lawsuit against Bridgestone and Wildcat Creek
October 7th, 2012 Posted in General Nintendo, News, Posted by Valay | No Comments »

Unsurprisingly, Sony’s recent lawsuit against Bridgestone and Wildcat steps from the company’s dissatisfaction that actor Jerry Lambert appeared in the “Game On” commercial.

Senior director of corporate communications Dan Race provided a comment to GamesBeat. Race said that “Use of the Kevin Butler character to sell products other than those from PlayStation misappropriates Sony’s intellectual property, creates confusion in the market, and causes damage to Sony.”

“Sony Computer Entertainment America filed a lawsuit against Bridgestone and Wildcat Creek, Inc. on September 11. The claims are based on violations of the Lanham Act, misappropriation, breach of contract and tortious interference with a contractual relationship. We invested significant resources in bringing the Kevin Butler character to life and he’s become an iconic personality directly associated with PlayStation products over the years. Use of the Kevin Butler character to sell products other than those from PlayStation misappropriates Sony’s intellectual property, creates confusion in the market, and causes damage to Sony.”

--------------------

Bolded: Sony lost this. There's no mention of Kevin Butler in the ad at all - in fact I don't even know why people say it's similar (check this ad for similar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVBD8A8pAtU ) and it's not even an Wii Ad, it's a bridgestone ad featuring the Wii.

Seriously, they must lose... this is simply a dick move.

OMG, look at that. Exactly what I have been trying to tell all of you. It sounds far fetch but you CAN trademark a person's physical likeness and personality, media does it all the time. Had the Wii not been in the commercial this would not have been a breach, but it was so IT is.

Uh.  No you can't.  

Outside which, even if they wanted to trademark his physical apperance like if he was a cartoon person and that was legal, they would have to demonstrate "First use".

Which obviously he was in other commercials before.

 

I mean holy shit.  If you could trademark someones physical apperance, acting wouldn't be a career, because whoever you worked for first would own the rights to your apperance.

It is particularly bad for Sony if Jerry is not getting compensated for his image.  There is no contract without consideration involved.  And, if they were so set on having Jerry's likeness about for marketing, they wouldn't of let him go.

So, Sony is pushing a case that Jerry Lambert can't do any ads at all, because he is now a character called "Kevin Butler" which belongs to Sony.  



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 07 October 2012
forevercloud3000 said:
Kasz216 said:
forevercloud3000 said:

Yes, you can. These things are almost always under timed guidlines though, a few years and actors can do what they want. Depending on the contract you can completely ban an actor from appearing in certain mediums. In this case It doesn't seem to be THAT strict, simply that he can't advertise PS's direct competitors.......then he goes and advertises the Wii... :/

That's not a trademark.  That's a non-compete clause.   That's a totally different thing.

Also, such agreements are illegal in California.  Which is where Sony does all it's legal work and the Lawsuit is filed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#California


In this case, they are the same topic at hand. There are always ways around such laws. In the Wiki it states that there is a lot of vague areas where this can be abused for either side. The fact that Playstation is part of Sony Corporation and  works in all territories, they can technically try him anywhere. KB commercials were also in Japan and a few other countries you know. If this is the case, California will have to play middle man for multiple territories. I am not saying this will work, but I am sure Sony will try.

Not in California there isn't.  

Also... no... Sony really can't... you are talking out of your ass without any clue how jurisdiction works.

Besdies which... the lawsuit was filed in California already.

It doesn't take long to google something rather then just assume something is the way you particularly want it to be.

Outside which your argument now seems to be... "Sony can find a way to totally wiggle out of this and break the law in an unethical manner."

Which, I guess if that's your point... more or less what i've been saying.  Sony is good with the Unethical lawsuits.  It won't be by being right or a legal loophole though.  They'll just use their usual tactic of bleeding the other side dry of legal funds.



forevercloud3000 on 07 October 2012
Kasz216 said:
forevercloud3000 said:
Kasz216 said:
forevercloud3000 said:

Yes, you can. These things are almost always under timed guidlines though, a few years and actors can do what they want. Depending on the contract you can completely ban an actor from appearing in certain mediums. In this case It doesn't seem to be THAT strict, simply that he can't advertise PS's direct competitors.......then he goes and advertises the Wii... :/

That's not a trademark.  That's a non-compete clause.   That's a totally different thing.

Also, such agreements are illegal in California.  Which is where Sony does all it's legal work and the Lawsuit is filed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#California


In this case, they are the same topic at hand. There are always ways around such laws. In the Wiki it states that there is a lot of vague areas where this can be abused for either side. The fact that Playstation is part of Sony Corporation and  works in all territories, they can technically try him anywhere. KB commercials were also in Japan and a few other countries you know. If this is the case, California will have to play middle man for multiple territories. I am not saying this will work, but I am sure Sony will try.

Not in California there isn't.  

Also... no... Sony really can't... you are talking out of your ass without any clue how jurisdiction works.

Besdies which... the lawsuit was filed in California already.

It doesn't take long to google something rather then just assume something is the way you particularly want it to be.

Outside which your argument now seems to be... "Sony can find a way to totally wiggle out of this and break the law in an unethical manner."

Which, I guess if that's your point... more or less what i've been saying.  Sony is good with the Unethical lawsuits.  It won't be by being right or a legal loophole though.  They'll just use their usual tactic of bleeding the other side dry of legal funds.

I am not talking about breaking laws, I am saying almost every law has a loop hole. If this law in Cali was the end all be all, non-compete clauses wouldn't exist......but we know they do, I am personally in one. Why doesn't everyone just set up shop in Cali just so they can get out of them. It is not all monochrome, there are different stipulations that will effect the power of that law. Do you think a multi-million dollar company is not aware of these clauses and where they stand with them? It is fairly apparent that Sony must have some grounds to do this, as they are.



      

      

      

Greatness Awaits

PSN:Forevercloud (looking for Soul Sacrifice Partners!!!)

Adinnieken on 07 October 2012

Well, I can't find a registered trademark of "Kevin Butler" with Sony at the US Patent and Trade Office.

http://tess2.uspto.gov/

So they don't have a legitimate trademark that I can find. I can find other Sony related trademarks, but not "Kevin Butler".



Chark on 07 October 2012

It sounds like Sony is going the trademark route as their approach to enforcing something that would otherwise be upheld under a non compete clause. The presence of the advertisement and trademark in question in other states and countries is relevant. The lawsuit could well be taken up in a different location if need be, but using trademark law makes it viable in California. There is an exceptiin to non compete but only if the person/entity is a shareholder in Sony. Anway, Sony has plenty of grounds to pusue thus whether anyone thinks it is right to or not, which is not the same as the ability to levi a case. People seem really quick to jump on Sony, but this is a defensive reaction to a potential harmful situation to one of their brands, not your opinion on how harmful it is or how harmful in comparison to "bad press" by filing a suit.

Sony hires lawyers to defend their image, to not take action would horrible as well. Maybe further ads were in future promotions between Bridgestone and Nintendo, by the way the ad itself is for a tire company but the promotion was with Nintendo so don't think it isn't liable or relevant to the suit. By filing a suit they have so far accomplished the removal of the person in question from the ad for the time being and have undoubtable entered in bargaining with Bridgestone and Wildcat Creek. At the very least an agreement to not cause confrontation with Sony will be reached. Sony could have done this without filing a lawsuit but this is how you engage things in business and not doing so first puts you at risk for on going related "damages" and ultimately ends up with a lawsuit regardless.

This stuff happens all the time, this is a by the book reaction. Sony isn't evil. It's a bad thing to think that and you should feel bad.



Before the PS3 everyone was nice to me :(

Around the Network
forevercloud3000 on 07 October 2012
Chark said:
It sounds like Sony is going the trademark route as their approach to enforcing something that would otherwise be upheld under a non compete clause. The presence of the advertisement and trademark in question in other states and countries is relevant. The lawsuit could well be taken up in a different location if need be, but using trademark law makes it viable in California. There is an exceptiin to non compete but only if the person/entity is a shareholder in Sony. Anway, Sony has plenty of grounds to pusue thus whether anyone thinks it is right to or not, which is not the same as the ability to levi a case. People seem really quick to jump on Sony, but this is a defensive reaction to a potential harmful situation to one of their brands, not your opinion on how harmful it is or how harmful in comparison to "bad press" by filing a suit.

Sony hires lawyers to defend their image, to not take action would horrible as well. Maybe further ads were in future promotions between Bridgestone and Nintendo, by the way the ad itself is for a tire company but the promotion was with Nintendo so don't think it isn't liable or relevant to the suit. By filing a suit they have so far accomplished the removal of the person in question from the ad for the time being and have undoubtable entered in bargaining with Bridgestone and Wildcat Creek. At the very least an agreement to not cause confrontation with Sony will be reached. Sony could have done this without filing a lawsuit but this is how you engage things in business and not doing so first puts you at risk for on going related "damages" and ultimately ends up with a lawsuit regardless.

This stuff happens all the time, this is a by the book reaction. Sony isn't evil. It's a bad thing to think that and you should feel bad.

OMG, this in a nutshell!!! ^^^



      

      

      

Greatness Awaits

PSN:Forevercloud (looking for Soul Sacrifice Partners!!!)

Kasz216 on 08 October 2012
forevercloud3000 said:
Kasz216 said:
forevercloud3000 said:
Kasz216 said:
forevercloud3000 said:

Yes, you can. These things are almost always under timed guidlines though, a few years and actors can do what they want. Depending on the contract you can completely ban an actor from appearing in certain mediums. In this case It doesn't seem to be THAT strict, simply that he can't advertise PS's direct competitors.......then he goes and advertises the Wii... :/

That's not a trademark.  That's a non-compete clause.   That's a totally different thing.

Also, such agreements are illegal in California.  Which is where Sony does all it's legal work and the Lawsuit is filed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#California


In this case, they are the same topic at hand. There are always ways around such laws. In the Wiki it states that there is a lot of vague areas where this can be abused for either side. The fact that Playstation is part of Sony Corporation and  works in all territories, they can technically try him anywhere. KB commercials were also in Japan and a few other countries you know. If this is the case, California will have to play middle man for multiple territories. I am not saying this will work, but I am sure Sony will try.

Not in California there isn't.  

Also... no... Sony really can't... you are talking out of your ass without any clue how jurisdiction works.

Besdies which... the lawsuit was filed in California already.

It doesn't take long to google something rather then just assume something is the way you particularly want it to be.

Outside which your argument now seems to be... "Sony can find a way to totally wiggle out of this and break the law in an unethical manner."

Which, I guess if that's your point... more or less what i've been saying.  Sony is good with the Unethical lawsuits.  It won't be by being right or a legal loophole though.  They'll just use their usual tactic of bleeding the other side dry of legal funds.

I am not talking about breaking laws, I am saying almost every law has a loop hole. If this law in Cali was the end all be all, non-compete clauses wouldn't exist......but we know they do, I am personally in one. Why doesn't everyone just set up shop in Cali just so they can get out of them. It is not all monochrome, there are different stipulations that will effect the power of that law. Do you think a multi-million dollar company is not aware of these clauses and where they stand with them? It is fairly apparent that Sony must have some grounds to do this, as they are.

Because not everybody can live in cali?  Outside which, they listed all 3 loopholeson wikipedia.

Again.  Sony know's they can't win this lawsuit.

This is called lawsuit bullying.  Companys do it all the time.

They know they would lose, but do it because they know the otherside will give in because it's too exepsnive to fight.



Pokemonbrawlvg on 08 October 2012

Sony: Official owners of Jerry Lambert's face and likeness 

 



Read my original story on Fictionpress (Shinigami Twin): http://www.fictionpress.com/s/2996503/1/Shinigami-Twin 

As well as my other one (Hell's Punishment): http://www.fictionpress.com/s/3085054/1/Hell-s-Punishment

Nintendo Network ID: kingofe3

Galaki on 08 October 2012

You all better trademark your own face before Sony goes after you.



Pre-order limited edition Blue Slime Condoms

WindyCityHeat on 08 October 2012

This lawsuit is stupid. It needs to be thrown out.