Support NeoGAF

[Cat Party]

The similarities are simply too large to ignore. Here's a visual help, observe:


SONY's beloved "Kevin Butler" persona:

Bridgestone's poorly imitated ripoff trying to cash in on SONY's property:

It's shameless how another company can steal something SONY created and expect to get away with it.

Wow, I'm seeing double here.

Spoiler

Four Kevin Butlers!

 

[metalslimer]

ah, good old neogaf. having no clue about the guy's contract with sony or anything else involved for that matter and yet everyone's picking up the pitchforks. i love you guys.

Non compete clauses are mostly invalid in California except for extreme cases.

 

[kitchenmotors]

I can't tell which posts are sarcasm and which are serious in this thread. Some of the responses in this thread are kinda redic and these gurls need a good weave snatching.

 

[Satchel]

ah, good old neogaf. having no clue about the guy's contract with sony or anything else involved for that matter and yet everyone's picking up the pitchforks. i love you guys.

Noon, many get it.

But they've effectively terminated their Kevin Butler promotion anyway, so what was the point? One can only assume then that this is money driven then.

Well that, or Sony actually is run by forum fanboys. Something I've suspected for some time, but refused to believe was true.

 

[Hazelhurst]

What a frivolous lawsuit, poor bastard isn't even playing a Kevin Butler-like character.

How can you tell?

 

[Zoe]

Noon, many get it.

But they've effectively terminated their Kevin Butler promotion anyway, so what was the point? One can only assume then that this is money driven then.

How can you call it terminated when there's a promotion for his character in a game set for release in November?

 

[Mr_Zombie]

How can you tell?

He's not acting like a douchebag.

 

[bloodforge]

I see those Bridgestone commercials all the time and never once realized that guy also played Kevin Butler until now, lol.

 

[RobertM]

Watch them start using NeoGAF quotes as well

They've used posts on psx-scene when suing Geohot, so it's not out of question if neogaf shows its face in random lawsuits regarding user stupidity or such.

 

[denshuu]

Good! Go Sony, Go!

This kind of corporate cheerleading is pathetic.

 

[Qurupeke]

lol I don't know if this situation is serious or hilarious.

 

[lunchwithyuzo]

With a bunch of guesses.

So what exactly was the extent of this breach on contract then?

 

[Melchiah]

So what exactly was the extent of this breach on contract then?

You were provided with an official quote, I'm still waiting for one that supports your stand.

 

[Mlatador]

IMO sony suing the actor Who plays the role of kevin butler is a bad idea,how about to make this mistake in a potential and awesome kevin butler comeback?

The Kevin Butler campaign is as good as dead.

As was Bayonetta, until Nintendo brought it back with a bang...

 

[Kinyou]

This his hilarious. So does Sony own that guys face? Or does he have to act differently than Kevin Butler, but then... what if his Kevin Butler act is just his normal act?

 

[Satchel]

How can you call it terminated when there's a promotion for his character in a game set for release in November?

I'd be surprised of the actor who plays Kevin Butler would still do it after being sued?

Maybe I'm missing something though.

 

[Zoe]

I'd be surprised of the actor who plays Kevin Butler would still do it after being sued?

Maybe I'm missing something though.

Sorry, I thought you were one of the people claiming the campaign was long dead so no harm no foul.

 

[Syriel]

It's already been posted that non-compete clauses are invalid in California, where the lawsuit was filed.

*sigh*

Why do people keep repeating this?

The lawsuit was NOT filed in a CA State court. If was filed in FEDERAL court.

CA state law does not apply. It is a Federal law question.

Only settled Federal law and any decisions specific to the Ninth Circuit will apply. Decisions from other Federal circuits and CA courts are superfluous here.

So based on the recent responses I'm going to assume that no one read the update? It seems Sony and those involved have already settled, and based on the timeline it may have just been Bridgestone editing Jerry out of the ad.

Settled? Neither of the papers filed make any mention of settling. They only talk about resolving a discovery issue. That has nothing to do with settling.

Just because Kotaku thinks that means the parties had entered settlement agreements doesn't mean that is the case. It only means that the author at Kotaku has no idea what the legal filings mean.


What other posters here have said regarding the Trademark filing is correct. Sony is not suing over simple breach of contract. They're suing because they think Lambert is portraying Kevin Butler.

Honestly, it's going to be a very hard case to make because the Bridgestone commercial just had him standing there acting like a goof. He wasn't identified as the Sony character in any way.

 

[Nekofrog]

Yeah, Sony is wasting a LOT of time and money on this shit. Just when you think the company could be going in the right direction, they do shit like this.

 

[Lynn616]

"Use of the Kevin Butler character to sell products other than those from PlayStation misappropriates Sony’s intellectual property, creates confusion in the market, and causes damage to Sony."

So it is not just video game products but all products? That cant be right. Right? The actor surely didnt sign a contract saying he could never work again in commercials?

 

[slider]

So it is not just video game products but all products? That cant be right. Right? The actor surely didnt sign a contract saying he could never work again in commercials?

I'd assume it's the Nintendo angle that's rattled Sony's cage. Not that the dude can't do commercials any longer.

But wedges and thin ends eh!

 

[Clear]

(2) Can you please share your inside information as to why Mr Lambert "should have known better" and the precise terms of his contact that he broke? You are of course, so certain, that I'd love to see the info.

This is a business dispute, plain and simple. Sony's legal department clearly believes he acted inappropriately and have filed suit; Maybe they have a point based on a contractual arrangement that NEITHER of us knows the details of. Clearly they aren't doing this to create good publicity, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to think they believe they are the injured party and are seeking relief from the courts.

The entire premise of your post was that Sony are "bullies" spitefully oppressing the little-guy, which is an irrational, prejudicial position to take. You simply assume Sony are in the wrong despite your own admittance that you know no more than the rest of us about the specifics of the case.

That doesn't seem like the approach of an impartial observer, and neither does getting so irate over a legal argument that has no direct effect on consumers.

 

[IsntChrisL]

Bridgestone is not a competitor to Sony.

Finish reading my post.

 

[ZackieChan]

I didn't read all nine pages of this thread, but I just wanted to jump in and explain a few things. First, the "federal question" that gets them into federal court is that the dispute is a Lanham Act (trademark) dispute, not a contract dispute. They're NOT saying that the Kevin Butler actor can't do other commercials. They're not even suing HIM. They're suing Bridgestone.

The reason that they are suing is that by using the actor in their commercials and having it associated with Nintendo creates confusion in the marketplace as to the source of the product. Since "Kevin Butler" was used to sell Sony goods, and the character is presumably trademarked, having him advertising a Nintendo product can confuse customers. That is the whole point of trademark law; it's about confusion as to the source of products. They don't even need to show actual confusion. That helps, but they just need to prove that there is a likelihood of confusing customers.

If anyone has any questions, ask away. I took a class in this stuff.

 

[hokahey]

Failing brand?

Have you followed their earnings reports?

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

If anyone has any questions, ask away. I took a class in this stuff.

What about the second defendant- wildcat creek? Isn't that essentially Jerry Lambert?
Notice Sony are also claiming breach of contract.

 

[Valnen]

Corporate cheerleading is just the worst.

People that hate corporations and want them to lose just because they're corporations are the ones who are the worst.

Even if they have a contractual basis for this suit... it's still ridiculous.

Why? A contract being violated is pretty much the BEST reason to sue.

 

[zroid]

I just saw the Sony comment. BWAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[MetatronM]

The only way I can see this lawsuit making sense if they were claiming they had a multi-year buyout with Jerry Lambert that prevented him from appearing in other video game related commercials, which is what I assume the breach of contract would be about, but that doesn't seem to be the main point that they're arguing.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

I'd be surprised of the actor who plays Kevin Butler would still do it after being sued?

Maybe I'm missing something though.

Would you want to continue to work for a company that sued you?

 

[DrForester]

I didn't read all nine pages of this thread, but I just wanted to jump in and explain a few things. First, the "federal question" that gets them into federal court is that the dispute is a Lanham Act (trademark) dispute, not a contract dispute. They're NOT saying that the Kevin Butler actor can't do other commercials. They're not even suing HIM. They're suing Bridgestone.

The reason that they are suing is that by using the actor in their commercials and having it associated with Nintendo creates confusion in the marketplace as to the source of the product. Since "Kevin Butler" was used to sell Sony goods, and the character is presumably trademarked, having him advertising a Nintendo product can confuse customers. That is the whole point of trademark law; it's about confusion as to the source of products. They don't even need to show actual confusion. That helps, but they just need to prove that there is a likelihood of confusing customers.

If anyone has any questions, ask away. I took a class in this stuff.

"Kevin Butler" is not in the bridgestone ad though. The actor is not wearing a suit, nor is he claiming to be VP of anything.

I'd be surprised of the actor who plays Kevin Butler would still do it after being sued?

Maybe I'm missing something though.

I feel bad for the actor, as his entire career could have this hanging over him. What if he gets a role on a TV show, and Microsoft is the product placement and he's supposed to play with it. Or a film. Even in this case, he's only in this situation because his company signed a contract to do ads for Bridgestone, and later, Bridgestone did a promotion with Nintendo.

 

[lunchwithyuzo]

You were provided with an official quote, I'm still waiting for one that supports your stand.

An official quote that isn't reflected in the language of the suit itself. And when I made my comment, there was no quote yet even. How many times do I need to repeat myself?

So, care to answer my question then? Looking earlier in thread, you seem pretty fond of guesswork yourself?

 

[Satchel]

Sorry, I thought you were one of the people claiming the campaign was long dead so no harm no foul.

No no. I just assume Sony has effectively killed off the campaign given they're suing the face of it.

Would you want to continue to work for a company that sued you?

Didn't I allude to that point?

 

[OldJadedGamer]

Didn't I allude to that point?

Was a rhetorical question.

 

[Neuromancer]

Good. I hope they sue the brand traitor for everything he's worth.

 

[Canis lupus]

Have you followed their earnings reports?

Do you mean the PS brand? PS2+PS3 shipped more than the competition previous quarter?

 

[Chuck Norris]

I can't view the trailer, but it was pretty stupid of Bridgestone to take the character from another advertising campaign. Does he act the same in the commercials?

 

[NemesisPrime]

Do you mean the PS brand? PS2+PS3 shipped more than the competition previous quarter?

No, that one doesn't exist.

 

[Chuck Norris]

I guarantee if the Mac Guy, Justin Long, suddenly started appearing in Samsung commercials promoting their phones there would be a lawsuit to be had.

 

[SpacePirate Ridley]

WHAT THE FUCK. Poor Jerry Lambert, he only wants to make a living as an actor. For fucks sake sony.

I can't view the trailer, but it was pretty stupid of Bridgestone to take the character from another advertising campaign. Does he act the same in the commercials?

I guarantee if the Mac Guy, Justin Long, suddenly started appearing in Samsung commercials promoting their phones there would be a lawsuit to be had.

He is not doing of Kevin Butler, he hasnt got the clothes, he doesnt even says the same things, he is not the same character.
What does the poor guy need to do the be in another commercial, change his fucking face? his an actor for fucks sake.

 

[Chuck Norris]

WHAT THE FUCK. Poor Jerry Lambert, he only wants to make a living as an actor. For fucks sake sony.





He is not doing of Kevin Butler, he hasnt got the clothes, he doesnt even says the same things, he is not the same character.
What does the poor guy need to do the be in another commercial, change his fucking face? his an actor for fucks sake.

What, his only line of work is promoting videogames now?

Sony didn't have an issue until he was promoting a competitors system

 

[Tylahedras]

It's stupid for them to sue him, I hope to hell someone at Sony called him and talked to him about it before they made that decision. But I do think that when he was making that add and saw that they were doing a Wii promotion he should have contacted Sony and Spoken to Bridgestone. It would have been very foolish for him to appear in any add using non-sony game related items without speaking to them.

Anyways the whole situation is a shame. Such a great relationship to ruin over something so stupid.

 

[Psychotext]

I genuinely can't wait to find out how Sony plan to argue he's playing Kevin Butler in the advert. Should be some epic mental gymnastics going on there.

The Bridgestone advert isn't even a speaking part is it?

 

[Pikma]

What, his only line of work is promoting videogames now?

Sony didn't have an issue until he was promoting a competitors system

He wasn't promoting a competitors system, he was working with Bridgestone, it was juts one ad about a promotion they had. It's funny how you guys are trying so hard to tie all those lousy events just to go out and say that Sony are the good guys here. :lol

 

[Chuck Norris]

He wasn't promoting a competitors system, he was working with Bridgestone, it was juts one ad about a promotion they had. It's funny how you guys are trying so hard to tie all those lousy events just to go out and say that Sony are the good guys here. :lol

He was promoting a competitors system, there are no ifs and buts about it.

 

[cakefoo]

I go away for a weekend when all is quiet. I discover the moment I get back that Sony's legal department have once again gone fucking batshit rabid.

From subpoenaing YouTube viewer IP addresses, demanding account information for Slashdot users, threatening to sue into oblivion any of their customers that posted the short series of letters and numbers that composed the PS3 security key - even after they tweeted it themselves, and the crushing of Lik Sang, Sony's legal department taints the brand. It makes the company come across as the most petty, incompetent, bullying and venomously litigious corporation in the entire games industry.

It's interesting that they are so trigger happy to sue actors and their own customers - easy targets of course, rather than someone who really deserves it such as Bethesda for releasing a faulty game, conspiring to mislead Sony's customers by providing only 360 code to reviewers, and genuinely tainting the PS3 brand. Bethesda is not such an easy target I imagine though - considering their own legal department is nearly as batshit insane rabid and threatened Notch with legal destruction of he didn't pay them hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages for his wonton use of the word "Scrolls" without Bethesda's explicit consent.

I know that's a tangent, but it certainly shows how Sony's legal rottweilers like their easy targets.

Dude, you play this character every time you show up in a Sony thread.

He wasn't promoting a competitors system, he was working with Bridgestone, it was juts one ad about a promotion they had. It's funny how you guys are trying so hard to tie all those lousy events just to go out and say that Sony are the good guys here. :lol

I've said elsewhere, I'll say here: was Lambert enjoying tires in that commercial, or was he enjoying videogames? Obviously videogames. The Wii is the whole focus of the incentive to buy Bridgestone.

 

[-x.Red.x-]

(Thanks to -x.Red.x- for embedding)

OMG im famous!!!

 

[mclem]

How can you tell?

Can people zoom in really hard on his name badge and see if it says he's vice president of anything?

 

[TheBryanJZX90]

Here's a go at some actual legal analysis of Sony's claims of trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. This is actually an interesting question, I could see it popping up on law school final exams. (Note that this has nothing to do with breach of contract claims like non-compete clauses.)

The first problems will be deciding what exactly Sony is trying to trademark. Is it Kevin Butler's name, his appearance, or his character as a whole? Or, does Sony want to go even wider and trademark Lambert's performance as Kevin Butler in the series of commercials? Since the character in the Bridgestone commercial is not named I doubt Sony would want their trademark to be limited to the name "Kevin Butler." Attempting to trademark his appearance alone may not work either, as it may not be distinctive enough. Attempting to trademark the character as a whole or Lambert's performance as Kevin Butler may run into problems due to overlap with copyright protection, but is probably the best bet Sony has at making a case. However, the closer Sony's trademark is tied to the specific "character" or "performance" of Kevin Butler as opposed to the appearance, the harder it will be to prove that Lambert's appearance in the Bridgestone commercial actually caused confusion, as aside from the appearance of Lambert little is shared between the commercials.

Ultimately from a trademark perspective I don't think Sony has an especially strong case, but it is a lot closer than most people realize.

 

[ZealousD]

Sony's suit is without basis. Trademarking Jerry Lambert's likeness is absurd.

Bridgestone will probably settle for an amount that's lower than the legal costs of actually going to court.

Sony commits legal extortion.

Yay America.