i also think bruce willis should never act in an action movie anymore because he was in die hard and when i see him in an action movie i see john mclane so whoever is making an action movie is stealing the john mclane character!

someone in this thread, i believe kyliedog, said it was a damage for sony because the interwebs said "ohh see kevin butler" but what exactly was that for a damage? it's not as if people didn't like sony anymore because of that or anything. and do you know why people said "kevin butler"? because he is know better for that fake name. it's like luke skywalker, if i would see him in a commercial i would also say luke skywalker because i don't even know the real name of that guy.

the only damage sony got is because they get threads like this now in every gaming forum around the world.

I thought I got to the point when i pointed out that they were indeed suing lambert for the exclusivity clause.

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".

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

Turkish, before you respond with your opinion, could you please try to at least make yourself somewhat educated about US law?

Here is what Sony can trademark.

The words "Kevin Butler", though generic they can still trademark it.
The words "VP of Everything" (as a service mark).
The character "Kevin Butler" in the game "Little Big Planet 2".

Sony cannot trademark the actor Jerry Lambert, nor can they trademark his actual image.  If there are contract issues, then that's a different matter, but no one owns Jerry Lambert's image or likeness.

The problem Sony has is if Lambert's likeness is a trademark, then Holiday Inn and Gieco both had commercials featuring Lambert before Sony did.  Just because Sony's character became popular is meaningless under Common Law.  What is important is who first used the trademark.  If Lambert's likeness is a trademark, then Holiday Inn or Gieco have prior art to prove ownership.  Which is exactly why a company cannot trademark a person.  Especially when generic. 

Had Kevin Butler been a very unique character that everyone recognized, then Sony would definitely have a case.  The problem is that Kevin Butler is a generic looking character.  Trying to pick out whether or not Jerry Lambert is playing Kevin Butler from one of his acting performances is pretty difficult.  There's one specific one that I know of where no one would confuse it, other than that every other character has been generic.

Yeah, because Bridgestone is in direct competition with Sony, as wel all know...

Keep in mind that the Bridgestone commercial was to promote selling their tyres, not Nintendo Wiis. The Wii does not need advertising anymore, given it's mass recognition and popularity.

The PS3 on the other hand..

HE'S SELLING TYRES! He is not selling Wiis. It's a promotion from Bridgestone. Can't you make the connection here? The Wii DOES NOT NEED PROMOTION...

That's really pathetic Sony, you can't just sue an ACTOR(!) for picking up another ACTING(!) job.

As a professor of philosophy mentioned on the local radio last night, the defense "That's my opinion" should not warrant the end of an argument, rather it should signal the beginning of one...

I really hope other actors take note of this, because there is no doubt that Sony will be looking for another Kevin Butler soon. No self respecting actor would work for a company that forces their actors to keep away from competition of a brand that is currently in last place in the console market.

Well done, Sony....well done...

Kevin Butler is not a real person. The guy who played Kevin Butler has the right to portray other characters than Kevin Butler. Bridgstone hired an actor to play a tire engineer, not Kevin Butler. Sony is just being stupid. Apple lawsuit level of stupid.