'Call of Duty' wins First Amendment victory over use of Humvees

Post by kevin_thibedeau » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 12:38 AM UTC

Supermancho wrote: post #98

smabie wrote: post #2

I probably don't know what I'm talking about, but it seems to me that many companies pursue legal action that is against their own interest. Surely, Humvees in CoD could only help the brand, no? Moreover, the fact that they don't even sell any consumer products in the first place makes the entire suit even more dubious. The use of Humvees in CoD is going to sow confusion among the military purchasing officers and the…

> the fact that they don't even sell any consumer products in the first place makes the entire suit even more dubious. The CoD brand makes enough money to blink at. I'm 100% sure that one strategy was to win the suit and demand license fees for use of the name.

Post by thaumasiotes » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 12:47 AM UTC

mnemonicsloth wrote: post #92

Swizec wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trader Joe’s makes the best kleenex. And my iPhone captures the best kodak moments. I also enjoy facetiming via Slack. And of course googling for music is best done on Spotify.

Hardly anybody remembers nowadays but Elevators and Fridges used to be brand names (of the Otis Elevator company and Frigidaire, respectively). So the endpoint of nobody remembering that your IP is IP has been reached in practice. And more recently there's the PC, which became detached from IBM in record time.

Post by Supermancho » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 12:48 AM UTC

danShumway wrote: post #76

kube-system wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being smart enough to know something is fake is not enough to be psychologically unaffected by it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_placement#Research

But to follow up, why should we protect brands from negative psychological associations in movies? We still allow real products to be used in satires, even though satires could have the same unconscious effects you reference. We still allow people to publicly criticize products. We still allow real public figures and events to be referenced in fictional media, even though the same psychological effects you reference…

Post by kapuasuite » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 12:51 AM UTC

CM30 wrote: post #15

Have to be honest, I've always thought complaints about trademarked products in works of fiction were a silly thing to begin with. Why shouldn't a fictional universe feature products and businesses found in the real world? Are we supposedly to randomly assume all other universes don't have humvees or macbooks or the Red Cross? Who's to say the same people/companies/organisations would even be responsible in that work…

Post by jonathanpierre » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 1:23 AM UTC

KeytarHero wrote: post #124

cosmodisk wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The very first that came to my mind is Jeep. In some countries it literally means SUV nowadays.The term is so ingrained that pretty much everyone says like this: 'He's got a BMW Jeep' or 'Look, that's a nice looking Jeep, surely it's Mercedes!'. The funniest thing is that nobody can ever see a real Jeep anymore,as nobody buys them( talking about Europe here).

How is this an example of trademark erosion? Fiat-Chrysler still owns the rights to the name and would easily be able sue a competitor that tried calling their vehicle a Jeep. Sure, it's colloquially used as a genericized trademark, but it's not a true example, unlike ones like aspirin, cellophane, escalator - or yes, trampoline.