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

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

saicho on 09 October 2012
pokoko said:
Under the Lanham Act, I think Sony has something of a case. Clearly damage was done to their brand. They will have no problem finding evidence of that with all the articles and forum posts that sprung up after the commercials aired.

Lambert, by holding a video-game controller, associates himself with video-game consoles. Can anyone deny that? Is there anyone who saw the advertisement and did not chuckle or point? Honestly? Then damage was done when the association was made.

I think the important part of the argument is going to be whether or not Wildcat Creek or Bridgestone knew what they were doing when they had Lambert playing a Wii and if it was an intended reference. If it was done to intentionally spice up the commercial then it's pretty obviously a "false or misleading statement". Personally, I have little doubt that Lambert, at least, knew what he was doing, and that Wildcat Creek was making a conscious joke at the expense of Lambert's previous employer.

no. However, Lambert should be free to be associated with any video game console as long as he is not playing Kevin Butler and that is the case here.



MikeB predicts that the PS3 will sell about 140 million units by the end of 2016 and triple the amount of 360s in the long run.

Around the Network
happydolphin on 09 October 2012
KylieDog said:
When this advert came out the internet exploded with "Kevin Butler plays Wii in advert".

That right there is a solid base of claim. There was not enough done to seperate the character in Bridgestone advert from Kevin Butler.

But that was a joke, and it wasn't based on reality, because in reality Kevin Butler didn't play Wii, Jerry Lambert did.



Max King of the Wild on 09 October 2012
kowenicki said:
Max King of the Wild said:
happydolphin said:
Yridian. Good point with Britney, but she was starring as Britney, not as a fictitious IP.



And if she played a fictitious character in a tv show I'm sure she wouldn't be able to be seen with a coke either.

Brian Urlacher (Football player on the Bears) got sued by Gatoraid because he was wearing a life water (his sponser) hat and Gatoraid is the sports drink of the NFL (or something like that)


Because they still had contracts with those respective sponsors. This guy hasn't worked for Sony in a year. And it is the character, not the actor, that is their IP. 



Using the characters likeness is enough. Considering this is the same actor the likeness is pretty great... include that this bridgestone commercial now associated itself with a gaming device it increases the likeness.



smbu2000 on 09 October 2012
Max King of the Wild said:
kowenicki said:
Max King of the Wild said:
happydolphin said:
Yridian. Good point with Britney, but she was starring as Britney, not as a fictitious IP.



And if she played a fictitious character in a tv show I'm sure she wouldn't be able to be seen with a coke either.

Brian Urlacher (Football player on the Bears) got sued by Gatoraid because he was wearing a life water (his sponser) hat and Gatoraid is the sports drink of the NFL (or something like that)


Because they still had contracts with those respective sponsors. This guy hasn't worked for Sony in a year. And it is the character, not the actor, that is their IP. 



Using the characters likeness is enough. Considering this is the same actor the likeness is pretty great... include that this bridgestone commercial now associated itself with a gaming device it increases the likeness.

The "character" also looks like the business man from the Holiday Inn commercials (played by Jerry Lambert before the Sony commercials.) He also looks like the Geico executive in those commercials (also before the Sony ones.) Did Holiday Inn or Geico sue Sony for using their "character" (who also looks like Jerry Lambert) in their ads?




starcraft: "I and every PS3 fanboy alive are waiting for Versus more than FFXIII.
Me since the games were revealed, the fanboys since E3."

Skeeuk: "playstation 3 is the ultimate in gaming acceleration"

VicViper on 09 October 2012

What character likeness for god's sake... it's the guy dressed as a nameless tyre engineer in a tyre factory saying nothing at all!

What character likeness???



Around the Network
happydolphin on 09 October 2012
VicViper said:

What character likeness for god's sake... it's the guy dressed as a nameless tyre engineer in a tyre factory saying nothing at all!

What character likeness???

Okay, I laughed out loud and I'm at work!!! Don't make me laugh out loud!! :P



pokoko on 09 October 2012
kowenicki said:
pokoko said:
kowenicki said:
pokoko said:
Under the Lanham Act, I think Sony has something of a case. Clearly damage was done to their brand. They will have no problem finding evidence of that with all the articles and forum posts that sprung up after the commercials aired.

Lambert, by holding a video-game controller, associates himself with video-game consoles. Can anyone deny that? Is there anyone who saw the advertisement and did not chuckle or point? Honestly? Then damage was done when the association was made.

I think the important part of the argument is going to be whether or not Wildcat Creek or Bridgestone knew what they were doing when they had Lambert playing a Wii and if it was an intended reference. If it was done to intentionally spice up the commercial then it's pretty obviously a "false or misleading statement". Personally, I have little doubt that Lambert, at least, knew what he was doing, and that Wildcat Creek was making a conscious joke at the expense of Lambert's previous employer.

"Clearly damage was done to their brand" Are you serious!? I'd love you to quantify that for me. A load of fanboy irrational rants bragging or crying because the bloke that played the now irritating and pointless KB isn't exactly pristine evidence is it.  If their opinions mattered then the world would be fucked.

This action is what's doing harm to their brand. Easily proven (quote your own logic back at you), you only have to look at all the forums and posts since this action was brought.

Fact is, it had already blown over, nobody cared, the ad was forgotten.

Sony have dug an enormous hole and gleefully jumped into it.

An enormous hole?  What are you talking about?  I thought irrational rants from fanboys didn't matter?

Regardless, I'm talking about brand damage from a legal perspective, not whether or not the anti-Sony crowd at VGChartz hates Sony even more now than they did before.

That brand damage was done among Sony's primary audience seems pretty obvious.  I don't believe they will have trouble proving that.   As I said, the only trouble they will have is proving that it was intentional, which is the other part of the equation under the Lanham Act.  Will they be able to do that?  I don't know.  Will it go that far?  Probably not.

What surprises me somewhat is that there is hate for Sony for this when Microsoft would almost certainly take legal action in the same situation and possibly Nintendo as well.  They've all shown that they will use legal pressure to get their way, just like every other successful corporation in the world.


At last someone said it.  And you would crucify them for it, but not now its Sony.  The amount of times I have heard Sony supporters here take a shit on ms due to their bully boy behaviour. Hypocrits.

I would not.  You are lying without basis.  I never even said I liked what Sony is doing, only that they do seem to have some grounds for a case under the Lanham Act.

Look, you sound kind of emotionally invested in this, like you want this to be some kind of fandom flame war, but I really, really have no interest in that.  If you don't want to talk about the case objectively, then I think we're done.



Max King of the Wild on 09 October 2012
smbu2000 said:
Max King of the Wild said:
kowenicki said:
Max King of the Wild said:
happydolphin said:
Yridian. Good point with Britney, but she was starring as Britney, not as a fictitious IP.



And if she played a fictitious character in a tv show I'm sure she wouldn't be able to be seen with a coke either.

Brian Urlacher (Football player on the Bears) got sued by Gatoraid because he was wearing a life water (his sponser) hat and Gatoraid is the sports drink of the NFL (or something like that)


Because they still had contracts with those respective sponsors. This guy hasn't worked for Sony in a year. And it is the character, not the actor, that is their IP. 



Using the characters likeness is enough. Considering this is the same actor the likeness is pretty great... include that this bridgestone commercial now associated itself with a gaming device it increases the likeness.

The "character" also looks like the business man from the Holiday Inn commercials (played by Jerry Lambert before the Sony commercials.) He also looks like the Geico executive in those commercials (also before the Sony ones.) Did Holiday Inn or Geico sue Sony for using their "character" (who also looks like Jerry Lambert) in their ads?

Please use some common sense before posting. Sony has never used Lambert to promote a free stay at the Mariot or 10% allstates rates.



Max King of the Wild on 09 October 2012
VicViper said:

What character likeness for god's sake... it's the guy dressed as a nameless tyre engineer in a tyre factory saying nothing at all!

What character likeness???



Except he did say somthing. I don't think you are well enoughed informed to discuss such matters



happydolphin on 09 October 2012
KylieDog said:

It was not a joke though, that is what the internet ran with, it did damage to the PS brand and the Kevin Butler character, as said, the advert doesn't do enough to seperate Lambert from the Kevin Butler character.

So nowadays we sue individuals based on the stupidity of the interwebs. As for doing enough to separate Lamber from KB, what were you expecting them to do, but a sign on his face saying "I am not KB?". I know this is a silly question, but what apart from playing a Wii (which obviously the KB char would not be doing) would separate him in your opinion?