You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: DR. PEPPER ISSUES CHALLENGE TO AXL ROSE!
You're allowed in advertising to show a competitors brand. This wasn't always the case. In the 50's & 60's you couldn't which is why older commercials would simply say "Here's the other brand". I don't know when, myb the 70's, but the law was revised to use competition in advertising, so no in that case you do not have to pay.
Yes, but this is because it was previously ruled that the comparison could devaluate the other brand, this invoking the tarnishing thing again. Later on, they changed this because (and I forgot the actual case), it was not considered tarnishing if you were telling the truth, showing some sort of objectivity.
For instance, the statement "Pepsi contains less sugar than CocaCola" (if this would indeed be true), could in the past have been considered tarnishing (because sugar makes you fat, can fuck with your insuline levels, whatever...). This is what they revised back then. I believe the original case was in 77, the law was revised in '79.
BTW - Don't say 'you can bet your sweet ass'. That's kinda lame when I know what I'm talking about.
My apologizes, English is not my native language and I wasn't aware this could be considered derisive. I thought it was just "colorful".
Re: DR. PEPPER ISSUES CHALLENGE TO AXL ROSE!
TheMole wrote:PaSnow wrote:Verizon can't issue a campaign saying $10 off your phone bill if the New England Patriots go 16-0 again.
Sure thay can.
PaSnow wrote:McDonalds cannot issue a product tie in saying "Get a free Big Mac when you turn in a Batman The Dark Knight ticket" They pay huge amounts of money to use those trademarks.
Actually, in this example, it would be Warner Brothers who's paying McDonalds.
No offense Mole, but these two statements right here tell me you don't know about this issue. You're drastically wrong on these two it's astonishing. Fast food resturants pay huge amounts of money to use a movies subject matter & name in promo tie-ins.
Yes they do, but your example implies the opposite: WB using McD as a promotional tool to sell more tickets, not McD desperately trying to give away as many free burgers as possible? It obviously depends on the situation.
I am aware that there are multiple factors that make this subject matter more difficult than it should be (portrait rights, endorsements, etc..). but luckily trademark law is pretty clear: trademarks do not exist to provide you with and additional source of income, they exist to protect you from companies trying to 'impersonate' you (for lack of a better word).
Anyway, I'm going to let this rest now, 'cause it's starting to (heh, yeah right) pollute the thread.
- DoubleTalkingJive
- Rep: 74
Re: DR. PEPPER ISSUES CHALLENGE TO AXL ROSE!
TheMole wrote:Untrue, ones does not need to pay a company to use their trademark. Take Line6 (guitar amps), for example: http://www.line6.com/legalDetail.html
They use their competitors trademarks to point out the quality of their tones & sounds, you can bet your sweet ass on the fact that they didn't ask permission to do so.Again, a trademark can be freely used to describe the product associated with it, without permission from the trademark owner. And think about it: if Pepsi can advertise their drink by comparing the product to CocaCola's and use their brand name, logo, etc... in their commercials, why would a non-competitor have to pay, or ask permission to use the trademark in their advertising campains?
As long as they don't tarnish or dilute the trademark's value, they can flat out do whatever they want with it.
You're allowed in advertising to show a competitors brand. This wasn't always the case. In the 50's & 60's you couldn't which is why older commercials would simply say "Here's the other brand". I don't know when, myb the 70's, but the law was revised to use competition in advertising, so no in that case you do not have to pay.
BTW - Don't say 'you can bet your sweet ass'. That's kinda lame when I know what I'm talking about.
I would understand all this pertaining to DR if they used GNR in a commercial but they didn't. The press got a hold of it and it was a story so to speak, nothing professionally done so I am going to stand by the fact it's very possible they aren't lying and they didn't know about this. DR did not come out commercially in any way with the GNR name. It was a challenge to get GNR's attention, Axl isn't the easiest person to get a hold of.
As far as you mentioning GNR is choosing not to sue, it's because DR did nothing wrong.
How many people mention GNR in an article that is basically what they did, nothing has been done professionally yet.
Re: DR. PEPPER ISSUES CHALLENGE TO AXL ROSE!
PaSnow wrote:You're allowed in advertising to show a competitors brand. This wasn't always the case. In the 50's & 60's you couldn't which is why older commercials would simply say "Here's the other brand". I don't know when, myb the 70's, but the law was revised to use competition in advertising, so no in that case you do not have to pay.
Yes, but this is because it was previously ruled that the comparison could devaluate the other brand, this invoking the tarnishing thing again. Later on, they changed this because (and I forgot the actual case), it was not considered tarnishing if you were telling the truth, showing some sort of objectivity.
For instance, the statement "Pepsi contains less sugar than CocaCola" (if this would indeed be true), could in the past have been considered tarnishing (because sugar makes you fat, can fuck with your insuline levels, whatever...). This is what they revised back then. I believe the original case was in 77, the law was revised in '79.
PaSnow wrote:BTW - Don't say 'you can bet your sweet ass'. That's kinda lame when I know what I'm talking about.
My apologizes, English is not my native language and I wasn't aware this could be considered derisive. I thought it was just "colorful".
Damn The Mole - if English isn't your native language you are doing a damn good impersonation. Hat's off! I think your English and grammar is A+
Re: DR. PEPPER ISSUES CHALLENGE TO AXL ROSE!
polluxlm wrote:If this is part of a promotion plan, time will tell, soon enough.
In the meantime I'll just sit back.
Good plan.
As for me, I believe my contact when she says Uni didn't know anything about it.
Not sure I believe anyone associate with GNR when they say they didn't.
Like you said, we'll have to wait and see.
but does your contact know everything that goes on at universal?
Re: DR. PEPPER ISSUES CHALLENGE TO AXL ROSE!
Damn The Mole - if English isn't your native language you are doing a damn good impersonation. Hat's off! I think your English and grammar is A+
Thanks 
.
Although, two sentences above yours, I did manage to write "I Apologizes"...
I'm going to chalk that one up to my typing skills 
Re: DR. PEPPER ISSUES CHALLENGE TO AXL ROSE!
About the legal implications...
In my business law class this term, we studied a case whereby a lady released a baby-care ad for public promotion. The video featured toys but she did not have the permission of the toy company. The company caught wind of it and successfully sued her. The company successfully argued that they did not endorse her product and therefore felt that the lady misrepresented herself as affiliated with the company.
I don't see how this case would be argued differently. Sure, a different decision would probably be met, but Axl could at least get this case brought to court... If not now, then when the promotion is actually released. Although it's possible that Dr Pepper's marketing team would develop this strategy without contacting anyone in the GNR camp, it's unlikely that they would. Especially if they have a competent legal team. It's far more likely that they contacted all parties involved before investing anything into the campaign. Otherwise, the promotion would be a potential disaster. Think about it. Even though Dr Pepper has the promotion worded as a challenge to GNR and they would probably be able to successfully argue that this doesn't harm GNR or the label or anything else in a court of law, there would be legal costs on top of everything else in order to fight it. It's far more logical to assume that the company would contact everyone involved prior to releasing the ad campaign to avoid such costs. Moreover, those who argue that the campaign hasn't been officially released yet so GNR probably didn't know beforehand, well, if the company waited until the last minute to get permission from the band and label and didn't receive approval, all of a sudden they're out the millions they've invested into the campaign. Corporate marketing and legal teams aren't stupid.
For the record, I'm not saying Axl's lying... it's all part of the promotion. It's a game. Dr Pepper challenges and Axl Rose remains mysterious and accepts the challenge without ever saying the album will definitely come out in 2008. It's creating a buzz.
Re: DR. PEPPER ISSUES CHALLENGE TO AXL ROSE!
As far as you mentioning GNR is choosing not to sue, it's because DR did nothing wrong.
How many people mention GNR in an article that is basically what they did, nothing has been done professionally yet.
True. If it remanins in this viral marketing/rumor/press release issued or whatever's currently going down you're right. Axl has little to no recourse over this. And I might add that that it would have been a pretty ingenious ploy by those at the ad agency to pull such a grassroots campaign. However, my basis for my debate was that Dr Pepper was preparing for a full launch of a campaign, to use GnR tie ins on advertising stating "We gaurantee you CD will be out, or you get a free can of soda" without prior consent.
My interpretation, is that that is likely the case, and yet somehow word got out (whether intentionally or unintentionally) before the full fledged launch. I still stand by my belief everything was previously agreed upon, and everyone else is entitled to believe whatever or whoever they want. I'm trying to leave this all alone so it's my last post on this.
About the legal implications...
For the record, I'm not saying Axl's lying... it's all part of the promotion. It's a game. Dr Pepper challenges and Axl Rose remains mysterious and accepts the challenge without ever saying the album will definitely come out in 2008. It's creating a buzz.
I agree, it's part of the ploy to downplay any prior knowledge. Just my humble opinion.
