Maybe he should have waited for his contract to end first and foremost before working on this particular commercial.

Break it up, you two (fordy and Max, just to be clear).

Because you have undeniable proof that this commercial was made before the expiry of the contract.....do you?

His contract expired 3 days before the commercial aired. I'm no advertising agency but I would think that would be a super fast turn around from shooting to airing in less than 3 days.

Super fast, but not impossible. Impossible would be if the commercial aired BEFORE the contract expiry date. 

Which brings up the next topic: what point the expiry effects the advertising process. Would Sony have sued had this commercial been made but not aired? What about with a direct competitor, like Nintendo? What if Nintendo hired Lambert before the contract expiry, made commercials but decided not to air them in the end? This does not provide any financial loss or endangerment to Sony. In fact, it would be a financial loss to Nintendo.

Many will argue logically that the point of Sony's loss (if any) occurs upon the broadcasting of such an advertisment, not the shooting. After all, can Sony regulate what Lambert does in private in his spare time? If you argue in favour of that, you'd be opening a pretty hefty can of worms.

A question: when you guys say "tyre" do you mean "tire"?

In English English "tire" refers to the process of becoming tired. 

eg. "I tire of this"

It has double meanings in "American" English.

Thanks for clearing that up!

I thought for a moment that you were going with a double entendre about this thread :D

The fact remains, that Sony can't trademark Jerry Lambert's portrayal as Kevin Butler.

"Trademark only protects names and logo images that are used to label goods or services."

http://www.chillingeffects.org/trademark/faq.cgi#QID240

"Thus it is not merely having a description or depiction of a character, whether in text or graphic format, that matters. Instead, trademark rights depend upon having a character that is used in relationship to specific goods and/or services and which character is then deemed to be a “source identifier.” The latter term means that the character is considered in the minds of the public as identifying a particular source of the goods and/or services."

http://www.ivanhoffman.com/characters.html

The problem for Sony in this case is that both Gieco and Holiday Inn have prior use of Jerry Lambert as a nondescript while male. Since both Gieco and Holiday Inn have previously presented a character similar to Kevin Butler, Sony can't claim ownership of that trademark. US Trademark law doesn't care who registers a trademark, but who uses it first.

George Lucas can claim trademark ownership of Darth Vader, both as a character and as a name, because both were unique when they were first used. In fact, long after the fact, Lucas went back and trademarked several character names, planet names, even the word Droid. Anyone who knows their sci-fi knows "Android" was coined long before Star Wars came out, but Lucas' use of Droid in Star Wars was unique allowing him to trademark "droid". Thus the reason why you see on every Verizon Android commercial small print about trademark ownership for "Droid".

"The person who establishes priority rights in a mark gains the exclusive right to use it to label or identify their goods or services, and to authorize others to do so. According to the Lanham Act, determining who has priority rights in a mark involves establishing who was the first to use it to identify his/her goods."

http://www.chillingeffects.org/trademark/faq.cgi#QID52

Again, while Sony has a popular character with Jerry Lambert's portrayal of Kevin Butler, Kevin Butler is not unique (e.g. Darth Vader, Mickey Mouse, Spider Man). He is a nondescript while male in a dress shirt, slacks, and tie. A generic character that Jerry Lambert played in both his Holiday Inn and Gieco advertisements.

What Sony may have is a contractual claim, for which it appears that Bridgestone has removed Jerry Lambert from the commercial in an effort to appease the claim in the lawsuit, they're on a fishing trip if they believe they have a trademark violation.