Comments (130)
« 1 2 »
tiffac008  +   683d ago
I just feel saddened about this whole scenario.
Darkspade  +   683d ago
Then Sony should have lock this guy in Contract... So Sony is saying this guy can't make a living..
trouble_bubble  +   683d ago
They're saying "breach of contract", does no one know what that means? Fanboys are so determined to destroy Sony that even breaching a contract with them is deemed acceptable on here. This is EXACTLY the kind of breach that is reason these trademark laws exist in the FIRST PLACE.

I -knew- this is what probably happened, and now that Sony have made a statement I was 100% correct. From another thread:

"Precedent has been set for this type of thing, remember when Naked cowboy was allowed by the judge to sue M&M's for their blue M&M naked cowboy ripoff? And they settled outside of court? Bang. Sony is within their rights. precedent was set here
http://www.onpointnews.com/...
http://articles.cnn.com/200...

Bridgestone could've used Jerry Lambert in any role in that commercial, the fact they deliberately used him as the guy with the Wii, rides the coattails of the Kevin Butler videogame persona. They put Lambert in a very 'Kevin Butler'-esque role and aesthetic with a brand in direct competition to PS. As per L-A-W...that could confuse some consumers into seeing the Wii as "PS3 VP of everything" endorsed. Too many similarities. Bridgestone knew they were wrong, if they weren't in the wrong, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE PULLED THE CHARACHTER! But they did, which is basically an admission of guilt.

Common sense people. Bridgestone stuck a Wii in his hands and lo and behold, it got them attention on here for example with "Kevin Butler advertises the Wii" headlines and lulz at Sony. This echoes Sony's official statement.

some links for peeps to read, or have a grownup read to them lol, about trademark LAW:
http://info.legalzoom.com/b...

http://www.wisegeek.com/wha...
#32.1 (Edited 683d ago ) | Agree(7) | Disagree(4) | Report | Reply
Saturne3   683d ago | Spam
Saturne3   683d ago | Spam
Saturne3  +   683d ago
So its over no more Kevin Butler...
omarzy  +   683d ago
Who are they talking about? Kevin Butler does not exist. How can you sue somebody for being in a commercial and not using the name that SONY has under contract?
MadMen  +   683d ago
SONY you are officially stupid...
Sunk  +   683d ago
Sony will most likely lose this one. Even if they do have Non-compete contract agreement it is almost impossible to uphold. Another real world example would be the 'American Chopper' ordeal. Paul Sr. sued his son because Jr. started his own company and also hired/stole one of Paul Sr.'s employees that handled his business. Which is obviously a clear cut violation of a Non-compete agreement. Paul Sr. eventually lost the lawsuit or 'settled.'

The only way Sony would have a case if Bridgestone intentionally used the name "Kevin Butler" which obviously would be stupid. This is more or less to send a message. I'm sure Sony has lawyers smart enough to realize this its just about impossible to win this type of case, but they are pursuing it for whatever reason.
trouble_bubble  +   683d ago
It's not impossible to win, these kind of things get settled before they go to court all the time, which mark my words will happen here and is essentially a win for the IP. Your example is irrelevant, we're not talking about a no-compete clause. Read Sony's press release and my links for what they're grieving, which is contract breach among other things.

A better example would be the Naked Cowboy from NYC Times Square who got the go ahead from the judge to go after M&M candies for using his likeness in a M&M commercial. Calling the charachter 'Kevin Butler' or 'Naked Cowboy M&M' or not doesn't make a lick of difference. If it looks like Kevin, talks like Kevin, does what Kevin does, the end. The guy's playing a Wii, not tuning tires. That's enough for lawyers to argue for brand confusion or an implied endorsement, which they are arguing, and Bridgestone soon edited Jerry Lambert right out of the commercial all together. They know they screwed up.

@Drainage
That's not the way the trademark laws work. No breach? Then why'd Bridgestone kill the commercial and edit Lambert the heck outta there. This is so simple it hurts. Doesn't mean Lambert's done with Sony either. It's just business. A year from now they could all be working together again.
#38.1 (Edited 683d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
hadouken182  +   683d ago
What he gets for doin a punk ass nintendo ad. I didnt like em anyway
mushroomwig  +   682d ago
He wasn't doing a Nintendo ad, it was a Bridgestone one that just happened to feature a Nintendo product because of a promotion.
SOULJER  +   683d ago
It's a business first. Read your contract. Plain and simple.
urwifeminder  +   683d ago
Look at his head lol he should be on radio.
Drainage  +   683d ago
LOL Sony will lose . They didnt use the "Kevin Butler " character. Unless he was using a name tag on the ad, he wasnt Butler. No Breach. Sony loses. Go steal another Wii product
TCG_Returns  +   683d ago
Sony really need to get unified in these types of situations.Legal team and advertising (specifically product placement) are just atrocious.

Take the show breaking bad for example.Great show, a lot of viewers.Made by Sony and yet, there has been numerous product placements of Wii & even 360.Yet no PS3.

It's just such a stupid move.They need to have a team dedicated to overseeing all of these projects and adjusting accordingly.

Could of nipped this whole Bridgestone thing in the bud.
BitbyDeath  +   683d ago
Shouldn't the title be changed to reflect the update that Kevin/Jerry is not being sued?
#44 (Edited 683d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
okmrman  +   683d ago
now all the fanboys are hating on "Butler"
you guys are the most two faced people on this planet

oh gosh...disgusting

disagree if the truth hurts
JellyJelly   683d ago | Trolling | show
PtRoLLFacE  +   683d ago
#47 (Edited 683d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
SmilyTheSyko  +   683d ago
good i love kevin butler ads for sony but this guys a douche for doing that i mean come on seriously. Be smart change you hair style at least.
kukouri  +   683d ago
I do like that they consider Kevin Butler a character they made.
Master of Unlocking  +   683d ago
Who wrote that headline "sony sues kevin butler"???

-> "On September 11, Sony Computer Entertainment America filed a lawsuit against the Bridgestone Tires company and Wildcat Creek, Inc advertising firm."

It's just the ad company that's being sued by sony for breach of contract, the actor is not responsible. Way to make a mountain out of a molehill, geez.
Drainage  +   683d ago
no because kevin butler is the CEO of that company
Vanfernal  +   682d ago
Well think about it. What gets you more hits: "Sony sues Kevin Butler" or "Sony sues Bridgestone Tires Company and Wildcat Creek, Inc"?

The thing is, people are quick to hate and criticize, but if there actually was actually a breach in contract Sony is well within their rights to take legal action. After all that's what contracts are for.

Also, it's true using Jerry Lambert the way hey did in that commercial was pretty much a blatant rip-off of the KB persona. I remembered I was like "Awesome! New KB commercial... Wait... what???"
#50.2 (Edited 682d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
AngelaGriffins22   682d ago | Spam
SonyLife4evr   682d ago | Spam
LiquidSword93  +   682d ago
I think Sony should have kept this quiet if this guy was such a big deal.
joeorc  +   682d ago
OMG
when this info was posted Sunday read the court doc's people! there was already a move of closure. God the court case was put out and have the bridge stone TV ad with Jerry in promotion of the Wii as a reference of KB he ie: jerry was acting in such form to show the KB persona when he was under contract and bridge stone pulled the AD there is most likely a settlement outside of court for breach of contract, it is right there in the court doc's page reference 14!

Sony was issue a move of suit in case Bridge Stone and Jerry's ad agency did not cease and desist. The TV Ad was pulled Already.
#54 (Edited 682d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
spinbot_lv1  +   682d ago
venture beat has an odd and strange forum board. All the sony haters comments as "POStation" "Sony die!" "PS patetic brand" and so on, have more thumbs up than thumbs down. Moreover when I clik thumbs down on sony haters comments magically appears a +1 on thumbs up! Uhuh maybe there's a strange nintendo fanboy/sony hater rule on venture beat board forum.
#55 (Edited 682d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
stuntman_mike  +   682d ago
They didnt use the Kevin Butler character he just wore a white coat and pranced about a bit?? he didnt call himself that in the advert or anything. i can understand if its a contractual thing but Kevin Butler wasnt mentioned or aluded too in the adverts?
tommygunzII  +   681d ago
Jerry knew it was wrong to be seen playing a Wii in a TV commercial. Something in his gut told him "Sony won't like this" but he did it anyway.
« 1 2 »

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login
Remember