Sony Suing Jerry Lambert (Kevin Butler)

#121Nergy15Posted 10/7/2012 12:32:41 AM
This is exactly what Sony needs right now.

Spending money it doesn't have on suing the actor who portrays someone EVERYONE loves. Also I can't believe there are people defending Sony.

Just for the next batch of people who didn't read the article or the thread:

IT'S NOT A CONTRACT DISPUTE

They seriously think they own Jerry Lambert's face.
---
u wot m8
#122-Jammo-Posted 10/7/2012 12:42:13 AM
C'mon gaiz Sony owns gamin still. The PS3 is jutizzle as relevizzle than the PS2 was and that system was bunk and tight.

Sony major innovates with Sixasis bro best ting eva. Play beyond 360 maks people do a 360 and walk away lol. Gret exclusies that will be jammin best gam Eva. Ffxiii with lady cloud strife only on the PS3 will win Goty to sho? U gaiz just ilen Psmove will be tight.
---
"The truth is never a laughing matter." bigdsd08
A wise proverb. Nothing in real life is worth smiling over...ever. LOL
#123CrimsonGear80Posted 10/7/2012 12:45:24 AM
They seriously think they own Jerry Lambert's face.

are you stupid? Pretty sure Jerry Lambert has been in other things since being Kevin Butler....

They are suing because of the Kevin Butler-likeness being used to play a Wii, a competitor of Sony. If you were a spokesperson of Coke, and you were caught in public drinking a Pepsi, you would be fired and based on any contract stipulations, sued. that's what's happening here, and what we don't know is if Lambert or Bridgestone knew about this stipulation or not.
---
The song is called "Baba O' Riley", NOT "Teenage Wasteland".
http://imgon.net/di-CFMD.gif
#124Nergy15Posted 10/7/2012 12:52:52 AM
CrimsonGear80 posted...
They seriously think they own Jerry Lambert's face.

are you stupid? Pretty sure Jerry Lambert has been in other things since being Kevin Butler....

They are suing because of the Kevin Butler-likeness being used to play a Wii, a competitor of Sony. If you were a spokesperson of Coke, and you were caught in public drinking a Pepsi, you would be fired and based on any contract stipulations, sued. that's what's happening here, and what we don't know is if Lambert or Bridgestone knew about this stipulation or not.


Okay, please read:

Plaintiff: Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC
Defendants: Bridgestone Americas, Inc. and Wildcat Creek, Inc.

Case Number: 3:2012cv04753
Filed: September 11, 2012

Court: California Northern District Court
Office: San Francisco Office
County: San Mateo
Presiding Judge: Laurel Beeler

Nature of Suit: Intellectual Property - Trademark
Cause: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

They are arguing that Jerry Lambert was portraying Kevin Butler in the ad simply because he was there. If this was a breach of contract, they would be suing Jerry Lambert, not Bridgestone and Wildcat Creek.
---
u wot m8
#125SenordunwichPosted 10/7/2012 1:10:17 AM
-Jammo- posted...
C'mon gaiz Sony owns gamin still. The PS3 is jutizzle as relevizzle than the PS2 was and that system was bunk and tight.

Sony major innovates with Sixasis bro best ting eva. Play beyond 360 maks people do a 360 and walk away lol. Gret exclusies that will be jammin best gam Eva. Ffxiii with lady cloud strife only on the PS3 will win Goty to sho? U gaiz just ilen Psmove will be tight.


Don't forget Vita iz teh bez Uncharted goty wayyy better than mario 3d babiz crap SONY FTW!!!!11111
---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asnDP0Zj7mQ
It's hard to be taken seriously with a username like this.
#126Maximum OverdrivePosted 10/7/2012 1:33:30 AM
If Jerry Lambert had violated an agreement on his contract then I would've viewed the lawsuit as fair game. However, according to the news brought up in this topic, this isn't the case. If Sony truly is suing over his face then I cannot back them on this one. It's just a little outrageous.
---
Resistance: Fall of Man username: [AM>]Shadow_Angel
MGO username: [PED] SHADOW ANGEL
#127L0L_FAQPosted 10/7/2012 1:40:24 AM(edited)
From: Super_MooRio | Posted: 10/7/2012 12:03:08 PM | #104
Why he is getting sued is not important... He deserves the full impact of the law


Why he's getting sued is totally important; if it was in breach of the non-compete clause in his contract, they would have a case. At present, they're basically trying to own his face. That's why they're suing Bridgestone, not Jerry Lambert; they think a guy acting as a guy playing video games = "Kevin Butler".

Even in they took him to court for the non-compete clause, they'd still probably flop unless the judge and jury are completely stupid, since they have essentially not been using him anyway since A) he was in a Bridgestone commercial that had a Nintendo promotion in it (so unless Nintendo was helping it's production or funding, he was definitely working for Bridgestone under that contract, though I'm not a lawyer and I don't claim to have extensive legal knowledge of the situation) and B) I'm guessing Kevin Butler signed only to adveertise Bridgestone, showed up for the shoot and was told he had to play a Wii and was contractually obligated to follow through. That's one thing the court should keep in mind.

Your opinion on this is childish; I can hardly fault the guy for trying to do his job and getting caught in the gears between two contracts.
---
http://i.imgur.com/vpXc3.png http://i.imgur.com/lljy5.jpg
"L0L_FAQ is one of the reasons I even read the forums any more" - CJayC
#128FayeLadyPosted 10/7/2012 1:46:49 AM
If there was a contract involved, im sure it would be mentioned in the official complaint. We can also tell from the complaint That Sony is suing Wildcat and Bridgestone, whereas any contract would have been with Jerry Lambert. They can't sue 2 other entities for breaking a contract signed by a third one.
---
If I support the game company, then I won't be supporting the blank DVD business.
#129Shadowfxd2Posted 10/7/2012 3:14:53 AM
From: Nergy15 | #124
CrimsonGear80 posted...
They seriously think they own Jerry Lambert's face.

are you stupid? Pretty sure Jerry Lambert has been in other things since being Kevin Butler....

They are suing because of the Kevin Butler-likeness being used to play a Wii, a competitor of Sony. If you were a spokesperson of Coke, and you were caught in public drinking a Pepsi, you would be fired and based on any contract stipulations, sued. that's what's happening here, and what we don't know is if Lambert or Bridgestone knew about this stipulation or not.


Okay, please read:

Plaintiff: Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC
Defendants: Bridgestone Americas, Inc. and Wildcat Creek, Inc.

Case Number: 3:2012cv04753
Filed: September 11, 2012

Court: California Northern District Court
Office: San Francisco Office
County: San Mateo
Presiding Judge: Laurel Beeler

Nature of Suit: Intellectual Property - Trademark
Cause: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

They are arguing that Jerry Lambert was portraying Kevin Butler in the ad simply because he was there. If this was a breach of contract, they would be suing Jerry Lambert, not Bridgestone and Wildcat Creek.


How exactly did he act like Kevin Butler? He wasn't the VP of firestone... I think Sony is just trying to kill itself quickly to get it over with...
---
http://i.imgur.com/NbGmq.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/ARXXY.jpg
#130DiligentTreePosted 10/7/2012 4:27:39 AM
Shadowfxd2 posted...
From: Nergy15 | #124
CrimsonGear80 posted...
They seriously think they own Jerry Lambert's face.

are you stupid? Pretty sure Jerry Lambert has been in other things since being Kevin Butler....

They are suing because of the Kevin Butler-likeness being used to play a Wii, a competitor of Sony. If you were a spokesperson of Coke, and you were caught in public drinking a Pepsi, you would be fired and based on any contract stipulations, sued. that's what's happening here, and what we don't know is if Lambert or Bridgestone knew about this stipulation or not.


Okay, please read:

Plaintiff: Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC
Defendants: Bridgestone Americas, Inc. and Wildcat Creek, Inc.

Case Number: 3:2012cv04753
Filed: September 11, 2012

Court: California Northern District Court
Office: San Francisco Office
County: San Mateo
Presiding Judge: Laurel Beeler

Nature of Suit: Intellectual Property - Trademark
Cause: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

They are arguing that Jerry Lambert was portraying Kevin Butler in the ad simply because he was there. If this was a breach of contract, they would be suing Jerry Lambert, not Bridgestone and Wildcat Creek.


How exactly did he act like Kevin Butler? He wasn't the VP of firestone... I think Sony is just trying to kill itself quickly to get it over with...


True.
---
This user is not offered for sale under any circumstances. No exceptions.