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

Forums - Sony Discussion - 'That isn't Kevin Butler', Bridgestone claims

Max King of the Wild on 09 October 2012
happydolphin said:
Max King of the Wild said:
I doubt many people know about this lawsuit. Probablly only harming their image with people who didn't like them already.

On the contrary! Jerry Lambert is a known actor. He isn't top-top, but he's hollywood nonetheless. Sony going after this guy is a risk of a move for their image. Seriously Sony should slow the fuck down with their lawsuits, it's going batshit.



Youre giving Jerry too much credit...

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1208801/

He mostly makes apperances on TV shows like that 70's show, malcom in the middle, and everybody loves ray. The 2 or 3 movies he's had small roles in I havent seen.



Around the Network
Wagram on 09 October 2012

While the Kevin Butler character definitely wasn't in play. Lambert may get bit in the ass because of this:

The Bridgestone advert aired just three days after the expiration of Lambert's contract with Sony, according to a new article in the Hollywood Reporter.

But the contract contained an "exclusivity clause" that prevented Lambert from providing his services or his likeness to competing gaming system manufacturers like Nintendo."

Even though the commercial isn't specifically about the Nintendo Wii, it does inadvertently advertise it. All comes down to what a Judge says but this could go either way swiftly.



Tridrakious on 09 October 2012

He was in a commercial with a company that was promoting tires and the Wii/Mario Kart...after he spent 3 years advertising the PlayStation 3 and even appearing at Sony's E3 conference 2 years ago...It's understand that Sony thinks they have a case. All I know is that KB gave away the keys to the PlayStation 3 over Twitter that one time, so he could have been a turncoat all along.
...
...
...
...Or this could be a big advertising campaign that is being worked on by Bridgestone and Sony...Seems so weird



Pavolink on 09 October 2012
Wagram said:

While the Kevin Butler character definitely wasn't in play. Lambert may get bit in the ass because of this:

The Bridgestone advert aired just three days after the expiration of Lambert's contract with Sony, according to a new article in the Hollywood Reporter.

But the contract contained an "exclusivity clause" that prevented Lambert from providing his services or his likeness to competing gaming system manufacturers like Nintendo."

Even though the commercial isn't specifically about the Nintendo Wii, it does inadvertently advertise it. All comes down to what a Judge says but this could go either way swiftly.

So, if aired 3 days after the expiration of the contract, Lambert is "fine". Nothing Sony can do with an actor after the expiration of the contract.



Proud to be the first cool Nintendo fan ever

Number ONE Zelda fan in the Universe

DKCTF didn't move consoles

Prediction: No Zelda HD for Wii U, quietly moved to the succesor

Predictions for Nintendo NX and Mobile


Max King of the Wild on 09 October 2012
Pavolink said:
Wagram said:

While the Kevin Butler character definitely wasn't in play. Lambert may get bit in the ass because of this:

The Bridgestone advert aired just three days after the expiration of Lambert's contract with Sony, according to a new article in the Hollywood Reporter.

But the contract contained an "exclusivity clause" that prevented Lambert from providing his services or his likeness to competing gaming system manufacturers like Nintendo."

Even though the commercial isn't specifically about the Nintendo Wii, it does inadvertently advertise it. All comes down to what a Judge says but this could go either way swiftly.

So, if aired 3 days after the expiration of the contract, Lambert is "fine". Nothing Sony can do with an actor after the expiration of the contract.


you need to reread what the article says. I underlined the part you missed



Around the Network
Kynes on 09 October 2012
Max King of the Wild said:
Pavolink said:
Wagram said:

While the Kevin Butler character definitely wasn't in play. Lambert may get bit in the ass because of this:

The Bridgestone advert aired just three days after the expiration of Lambert's contract with Sony, according to a new article in the Hollywood Reporter.

But the contract contained an "exclusivity clause" that prevented Lambert from providing his services or his likeness to competing gaming system manufacturers like Nintendo."

Even though the commercial isn't specifically about the Nintendo Wii, it does inadvertently advertise it. All comes down to what a Judge says but this could go either way swiftly.

So, if aired 3 days after the expiration of the contract, Lambert is "fine". Nothing Sony can do with an actor after the expiration of the contract.


you need to reread what the article says. I underlined the part you missed

If they have an active exclusivity clause, why they use a trademark reason to sue him? Wouldn't they use that exclusivity clause?



Max King of the Wild on 09 October 2012
Kynes said:
Max King of the Wild said:
Pavolink said:
Wagram said:

While the Kevin Butler character definitely wasn't in play. Lambert may get bit in the ass because of this:

The Bridgestone advert aired just three days after the expiration of Lambert's contract with Sony, according to a new article in the Hollywood Reporter.

But the contract contained an "exclusivity clause" that prevented Lambert from providing his services or his likeness to competing gaming system manufacturers like Nintendo."

Even though the commercial isn't specifically about the Nintendo Wii, it does inadvertently advertise it. All comes down to what a Judge says but this could go either way swiftly.

So, if aired 3 days after the expiration of the contract, Lambert is "fine". Nothing Sony can do with an actor after the expiration of the contract.


you need to reread what the article says. I underlined the part you missed

If they have an active exclusivity clause, why they use a trademark reason to sue him? Wouldn't they use that exclusivity clause?


"

On September 11, Sony Computer Entertainment America filed against both Bridgestone and Lambert's company Wildcat Creek.

The American arm of PlayStation said that the lawsuit claims are "based on violations of the Lanham Act, misappropriation, breach of contract and tortious interference with a contractual relationship".

"

Huh...?



Kynes on 09 October 2012
Max King of the Wild said:
Kynes said:
Max King of the Wild said:
Pavolink said:
Wagram said:

While the Kevin Butler character definitely wasn't in play. Lambert may get bit in the ass because of this:

The Bridgestone advert aired just three days after the expiration of Lambert's contract with Sony, according to a new article in the Hollywood Reporter.

But the contract contained an "exclusivity clause" that prevented Lambert from providing his services or his likeness to competing gaming system manufacturers like Nintendo."

Even though the commercial isn't specifically about the Nintendo Wii, it does inadvertently advertise it. All comes down to what a Judge says but this could go either way swiftly.

So, if aired 3 days after the expiration of the contract, Lambert is "fine". Nothing Sony can do with an actor after the expiration of the contract.


you need to reread what the article says. I underlined the part you missed

If they have an active exclusivity clause, why they use a trademark reason to sue him? Wouldn't they use that exclusivity clause?


"

On September 11, Sony Computer Entertainment America filed against both Bridgestone and Lambert's company Wildcat Creek.

The American arm of PlayStation said that the lawsuit claims are "based on violations of the Lanham Act, misappropriation, breach of contract and tortious interference with a contractual relationship".

"

Huh...?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanham_Act

 

The Lanham (Trademark) Act (Pub.L. 79-489, 60 Stat. 427, enacted July 6, 1946, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. (15 U.S.C. ch.22)) is the primary federal trademark statute of law in the United States. The Act prohibits a number of activities, including trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and false advertising.

Are they really using the false advertising card?



Max King of the Wild on 09 October 2012
Kynes said:
Max King of the Wild said:
Kynes said:
Max King of the Wild said:
Pavolink said:
Wagram said:

While the Kevin Butler character definitely wasn't in play. Lambert may get bit in the ass because of this:

The Bridgestone advert aired just three days after the expiration of Lambert's contract with Sony, according to a new article in the Hollywood Reporter.

But the contract contained an "exclusivity clause" that prevented Lambert from providing his services or his likeness to competing gaming system manufacturers like Nintendo."

Even though the commercial isn't specifically about the Nintendo Wii, it does inadvertently advertise it. All comes down to what a Judge says but this could go either way swiftly.

So, if aired 3 days after the expiration of the contract, Lambert is "fine". Nothing Sony can do with an actor after the expiration of the contract.


you need to reread what the article says. I underlined the part you missed

If they have an active exclusivity clause, why they use a trademark reason to sue him? Wouldn't they use that exclusivity clause?


"

On September 11, Sony Computer Entertainment America filed against both Bridgestone and Lambert's company Wildcat Creek.

The American arm of PlayStation said that the lawsuit claims are "based on violations of the Lanham Act, misappropriation, breach of contract and tortious interference with a contractual relationship".

"

Huh...?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanham_Act

 

The Lanham (Trademark) Act (Pub.L. 79-489, 60 Stat. 427, enacted July 6, 1946, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. (15 U.S.C. ch.22)) is the primary federal trademark statute of law in the United States. The Act prohibits a number of activities, including trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and false advertising.

Are they really using the false advertising card?



oh... kay? cool? You have a problem with the word AND don't you?



happydolphin on 09 October 2012

Quote trees and inflamed egos destroy many a threads. Guys, get to the point.