Lumberjack Bonanza posted:

Also, losing him because he dared to play mario kart on camera is hilariously dumb. Like, okay, Sony and Nintendo "compete" for the handheld market, but as far as home consoles are concerned they had might as well not even be in the same business.

Dr_Amazing posted:

Growing up in Canada we watched a lot if American tv. So it was super common to see ads for businesses that didn't even operate in my country, prices given in a different currency, and sales for holidays we don't celebrate.

ElwoodCuse posted:

It's Trademark Law 101, and his contract almost certainly forbid it as well. He should have known better than to do that in another commercial and he settled the lawsuit with Sony.

ElwoodCuse posted:

It's really bad for companies to ignore trademark violations. They had to do it.

bringmyfishback posted:

I know this from forever ago, but vice-versa!

I'm still not going to Marineland, though.

Lumberjack Bonanza posted:

How is that a trademark violation, though? He was playing a character in the Sony adverts, which was not the same character as that in the Bridgestone commercial.

joshtothemaxx posted:

This is a juicy one. Dunkin' Donuts has completely poo poo the bed with their Liverpool FC sponsorship. This morning they tweeted out the picture below with: “Love the LFC crest? Tweet us what you’d want on your personal crest and we might surprise you with your own!”

Chas McGill posted:

Where are these doughnut companies hiring PR? The Krispy Kreme Klub and now this...

joshtothemaxx posted:

Liverpool FC is one of the most storied clubs in England, known for their long history of winning lots of titles (not recently) and the tragedy of the Hillsborough disaster of 1989. "You'll Never Walk Alone" has been the clubs slogan since the 1960s, and the phrase gained increased importance to club supporters since the 1989 tragedy.

Disgusting Coward posted:

I know LOL ADVERSE ADVERTISING is a fairly tired response to every P.R blunder but I genuinely believe KKK and this Dunking Donuts thing are deliberate. Krispy Kreme has gone from a cabinet I walk past and ignore in Tesco to being one of those viral Internet things everyone likes so much, and Dunkin' Donuts have simultaneously gained themselves a ton of good feeling amongst football fans who dislike Liverpool, as well as ensuring that Liverpool's notoriously vocal and whiny supporters will forever give them free advertising in the form of LA NEVER FURGET THE SHOCCHHHIN' DIZZPLAY OF DIZZRESPEC'.

Guaranteed, in 2525 some disrguntled RoboScouser will be holobashing about how Dunkin' Donut branded nutrition pills should be boycotted because before the Nano Wars they teamed up with Rupert Murdoch to piss on Ken Bigley's grave. Free advertising FOREVER.

Wandle Cax posted:

Dude this is really really basic stuff. If you're in an ad for a company you absolutely can't be in another ad using the competitor's product. Simple as that, of course it doesn't matter if you're playing another character. This is all standard contractual stuff in any ad ever made. Also Nintendo and Sony are competitors, in that they are both video game companies.

bringmyfishback posted:

I know this from forever ago, but vice-versa!

I'm still not going to Marineland, though.

Wandle Cax posted:

Dude this is really really basic stuff. If you're in an ad for a company you absolutely can't be in another ad using the competitor's product. Simple as that, of course it doesn't matter if you're playing another character. This is all standard contractual stuff in any ad ever made. Also Nintendo and Sony are competitors, in that they are both video game companies.

Ego-bot posted:

Not My Leg posted:

That's just breach of contract though, it has nothing to do with being a "trademark violation." Also, breach of contract doesn't generally have the same requirement of enforcement against known breaches that trademark does (protect it or lose it). In fact, most contracts have language that a party's failure to enforce its rights under the contract in one instance is expressly not a waiver of the right to enforce the contract in another instance.

Ego-bot posted:

Inspector Gesicht posted:

pentyne posted:

That's not a real ad.

Dr Pepper posted:

The funny part is that one store did accept it

Irisi posted:

Aaargh, my toes curled in on themselves in horrified embarrassment the instant I saw that. Stellar job there, Dunkin Donuts. beautiful example of why you should always run your shiny new advertising idea past someone who might have a particle of knowledge about the organisation you're sponsoring.

Mouse Dresser posted:

Marineland is awesome. There is a pit full of the laziest bears on earth and you can feed them special bear snacks. Toss what looks like a corn pop at a lazy fat bear and it catches it in its mouth. If it doesn't catch it it just looks at you like you threw it badly.

QUACKTASTIC posted:

This post made me want to go to Marineland.

quote:

In 1977, The U.S. Department of Fisheries seized six bottlenose dolphins that had been illegally caught by John Holer in the Gulf of Mexico.[3]

September 2011, SeaWorld won a court battle with Marineland over the fate of Ikaika The Killer Whale. Ikaika had been originally loaned to Marineland under the terms of a breeding loan agreement between the two organizations, but SeaWorld decided to terminate the agreement due to concerns about Ikaika's mental and physical well-being due to deteriorating conditions at the park. Marineland initially refused to return Ikaika, but was eventually ordered to by the Ontario Superior Court as well as pay $255,000 in compensation to SeaWorld for legal expenses.[12]

On August 15, 2012, the Toronto Star published an article alleging that many sea mammals at Marineland live in inhumane conditions and suffer from a variety of illnesses caused by problems with water quality and chronic under-staffing. John Holer denied the allegations in the report, which was largely based on interviews conducted with former Marineland employees.[13]

On September 10, 2012 the Toronto Star published an article quoting former Marineland supervisor Jim Hammond alleging that Marineland owner, John Holer, had shot one of the baby deer in his park through the windpipe with a 12-gauge shotgun, leaving it to choke on its blood without dying. Hammond claimed the park owner refused his pleas for humane euthanasia.[14]

On December 20, 2012 the Ontario Ministry of the Environment announced an investigation into several mass animal graves at the park. The ministry had no previous knowledge of the graves, as Marineland lacks permits for such use.[15]

On March 5, 2013, the Toronto Star published an article quoting Hammond and a local resident alleging that John Holer had shot two Labrador Retrievers that had escaped a neighbour's house and entered Marineland property. The article also mentioned that Hammond was told by Holer “to check if there were any collars . . . around their necks and if there were, to remove them.” [16]

In September 2013, it was reported that the Ontario College of Veterinarians was investigating an unspecified number of veterinarians at Marineland.[29]

Not My Leg posted:

That's just breach of contract though, it has nothing to do with being a "trademark violation." Also, breach of contract doesn't generally have the same requirement of enforcement against known breaches that trademark does (protect it or lose it). In fact, most contracts have language that a party's failure to enforce its rights under the contract in one instance is expressly not a waiver of the right to enforce the contract in another instance.

Guy probably shouldn't have done a commercial that violated his contract, but Sony probably shouldn't have blown up a good advertising campaign over it. I suppose, however, that we're just assuming the campaign was successful because we liked it and didn't like what followed. It's entirely possible that Sony just wasn't happy with the returns being generated by the campaign and was looking for a reason to terminate him.

ElwoodCuse posted:

Yes it does have to do with it. It's misappropriation and confusion. Failure to enforce rights is absolutely part of trademark law, and why no corporation will ever let something like that slide without at a minimum sending C&D notices or filing lawsuits. No corporate attorney is ever going to look at the tiniest possible trademark issue and say "eh no big deal let it go".

Lumberjack Bonanza posted:

From what I read, he was no longer working with Sony prior to doing the Bridgestone advert. Still, could have been in his contract not to appear playing a competitor's games in such and such span of time.


Okay, you're still missing the part where this is not a goddamn trademark issue.

quote:

On September 11, 2012, Sony sued Lambert for "trademark infringement" due to his appearance in a Bridgestone commercial that featured the Wii as part of a sales promotion. They settled four months later, with Lambert agreeing not to appear in video game advertisements for two years.

pentyne posted:

Whether or not Sony would've won isn't the point, they made it a trademark issue and that's what it was.

Ego-bot posted:

Hopefully this post makes you not want to go to Marineland.

Lumberjack Bonanza posted:

From what I read, he was no longer working with Sony prior to doing the Bridgestone advert. Still, could have been in his contract not to appear playing a competitor's games in such and such span of time.


Okay, you're still missing the part where this is not a goddamn trademark issue. His character was not a registered trademark. He was not used by a competing company. The character was not even in the goddamn commercial, it was just the same actor playing a game. This is Sony being overly litigious, and that's exactly what makes it bad for their public image.

Cleretic posted:

Taking that as an example, Michael Jordan's got a following, and a degree of authenticity. If you're a fan of Michael Jordan, you might not directly go 'oh poo poo, he's endorsing Pepsi, time to ditch Coke forever', but you'll see Pepsi more favorably because that baskeballer you like, and maybe consider a role model, likes it.

For another example, let's go with a real-world one from last year.



Joan Rivers putting her own spin on the new iPhone, and giving a personalized endorsement, is a pretty good use of her. It's a little bit relevant, but only in the sense that Joan Rivers, and people who follow her on social media, are probably people who would want and use iPhones; Michael Jordan probably drinks soda, too, so it's honestly about equal to your example in relevance. It's also got an aspect of attribution to it; Rivers carries elements of affluence, trendiness, high-class, and yet carries a shade of humor and personality. They're all things that Apple want people to associate with the iPhone, so a celebrity endorsement from Joan Rivers makes sense.

Of course, this one fell a bit flat because she was dead at the time.

Dr. Killjoy posted:

So either her agent employed the worst PR agency to run her social media accounts, or alternatively they outsourced that job to a cultural setting where it'd be very easy to miss out on news of her passing.

Ego-bot posted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marineland_(Ontario)


Hopefully this post makes you not want to go to Marineland.