Turns out I did not enjoy my Happy Meal at all. I am very upset with my Chevrolet truck, since it turns out it is made of metal and fiberglass, and is not at all volcanic in origin! Why did they tell me it is "Like a Rock?" I bought a refrigerator with the expectation that it would make a good pet after I heard GE products "Bring Good Things To Life." It just sits and purrs, so I'm pretty sure I'm owed compensation. Turns out my Lucky Charms were not at all magical, let alone "Magically Delicious." Butterfinger is intentionally creating a fear of imminent threat of bodily harm every time I try to "Lay a Finger on Butterfinger." Is that assault? can I sue Skittles for that?Īnd on the subject of candy. I wanted to "Taste the Rainbow," but was attacked by a leprechaun when I got too close. This made me laugh, so I thought I would point out these litigants' next arguments: When discussing your potential slogans with a trademark attorney, it’s important to give the attorney as much context and information (including graphics and other visuals) as possible in order to result in the most informed opinion. A business should consider not only whether or not the potential slogan infringes upon the rights of third parties, but the business also must carefully evaluate how consumers are likely to interpret the slogan in the context of an advertising campaign. The issue serves as a reminder of the importance of careful evaluation of a potential trademark. Red Bull stands by its ads, but it has agreed to the settlement in order to resolve a costly dispute. The Red Bull consumers claimed that the drink conveys the same benefits as an inexpensive cup of coffee, due to the common ingredient of caffeine, but that the advertising campaigns give the impression that there is a healthier ingredient at work in the Red Bull beverage. This claim is similar to the one brought by consumers of the Skecher’s Shape-Ups sneakers, which also resulted in a settlement after consumer claimed that the shoes did not deliver on promised physical benefits. However, the lawsuit claimed that the slogan and the overall impression of the advertising were misleading in that they attributed increased athletic ability and other performance enhancements to consuming the energy drink. Logically, one wouldn’t actually believe that the drink would grant the consumer the power of flight. After all, one couldn’t possibly realistically expect an energy drink to cause a consumer to sprout wings and fly, right? An initial reaction to the slogan would easily be that Red Bull was claiming that its beverage would make the consumer feel invincible or super-powered, which is a type of puffery common in advertising. As a practical matter, this settlement will likely result in consumers receiving either $10 in cash or $15 in Red Bull products if they opt in to the settlement prior to March 2, 2015.Īt first glance, it is difficult to understand the consumers’ quarrel with the popular slogan. Customers claimed that the catch phrase mislead them into believing the drink had properties that it does not possess, and Red Bull has agreed to a reported $13 million settlement in order to resolve the dispute. Red Bull recently settled a class action lawsuit of its use of the slogan “Red Bull Gives You Wings” in connection with its energy drink.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |