[url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/calebmelby/2012/06/18/new-cola-war-sodastream-refuses-to-comply-with-coca-cola-cease-and-desist-letter/]News Article[/url]
Coca Cola send sends a [url=http://imgur.com/a/U7E66/]cease and desist letter[/url] to the makers of [url=http://www.sodastreamusa.com/]SodaStream[/url] telling them to stop their ad campaign in dozens of cities around the world where they setup a large recycling bin to accept empty soda cans and bottles in order to show how much packaging material that a person tosses away in a year (and that their product would reduce that wastage).
Coca Cola's reasoning? Many of those empty cans and bottles have the trademarked logo(s) of the Coca Cola Company and they are exercising their rights as the trademark holders and owners saying that SodaStream can not and should not be using Coca Cola labelled containers as a part of SodaStream ads.
This is where I ask you what you think, but I can't help but say that I think that this is utter bullshit. If a company cares what happens to its logo/product/container after it is sold to the consumer, to the point where they feel they have a right to say how/what that container/logo can or cannot be used, then they should show some REAL ownership and offer/provide a method to retrieve "their property" after the consumer is finished with the consumable portion.
What say you? Valid? Crap? Odd but interesting point?
For me, it makes me even more curious about purchasing a SodaStream. Especially now that [url=http://mashable.com/2013/02/14/samsung-refrigerator-soda-stream/]some refigerators are now coming with built in carbonators[/url].
Edit: I removed the banned SodaStream commercial as too many readers/members were thinking that IT was the cause of the "cease and desist" letter. It was not.
My apologies for putting in the video (which I thought was additional information) in. It apparently has confused, clouded and divided the discussion. The actual topic that I am hoping to discuss (and that many members are focused on) is the linked article. To attempt to correct my mistake, I have put in a photo of the large "recycle bins" that are in dozens of cities worldwide and are the cause/source of complaint from the Coca Cola company. THAT is what Coke is pissed about. That the bins contain trash and on some of that trash, people can see the logo's of Coke products.
-
I agree with you on this. Not much I can think of to say here.
-
1 ReplyEdited by halo: 2/15/2013 10:53:24 PMRecon, it's not about them using their products, its more about using their brand. It's kind of like saying don't buy coca cola, it creates too much trash. They don't care that they're using coca cola trash, they care that the trash has the coca cola name on it.
-
That's just silly. Coke, stop being silly.
-
1 ReplyOh I remember the days of bottle deposits. Does that make me old? [quote] If a company cares what happens to its logo/product/container after it is sold to the consumer, to the point where they feel they have a right to say how/what that container/logo can or cannot be used, then they should show some REAL ownership and offer/provide a method to retrieve "their property" after the consumer is finished with the consumable portion.[/quote]
-
1 ReplyThat's ridiculous. Unless Coke worships the aluminum that they make their cans with, the entire SodaStream ad campaign has absolutely no negative connotation directed towards Coca Cola, but rather towards what people do with Coca Cola waste. What's next? Law suits over the fact that there are environmental ads preaching to protect wildlife by showing images of animals being strangled by those plastic can-connectors because those pieces of plastic were made by certain companies?
-
Honestly? Now I want a sodastream. Coca Cola wouldn't do something so downright juvenile if they didn't feel that there was a major threat involved.
-
A logo, a product, and a container are very different when it comes to copyright law. When you buy a soda, you buy the product and the container, but the rights to use the logo are something else entirely. Although companies do sometimes use logos or names of other companies in their advertising. Store brand products often have the label "compare to [leading brand]" written on them.
-
2 RepliesI remember seeing that commercial, it was very excellent, and it makes a ton of sense. Why waste resources shipping carbonated water to people when you could just sell them the Syrup and have them carbonate their own water?
-
While they have their rights, they are feeling threatened. That HAS to be the mindset right now.
-
6 RepliesEdited by Zinger Tower: 2/15/2013 6:18:03 PMBy featuring a registered mark of another party in their advert, Sodastream run the risk of creating an association between the two brands in the minds of the consumer. As Coca Cola will obviously feel that Sodastream offer an inferior product to the one they provide this may potentially lead to a loss/damage to their brand's reputation. As such the claim for trademark infringement would be viable without even considering that Sodastream have used the registered mark of another party without due consent which, in itself, is prima facie grounds for a trademark infringement claim.
-
I think that Coca Cola is going to far with that, IMO it's just a large corporation flexing its muscle in the legal arena.
-
4 RepliesAre the makers of the ad profiting from the use of the trademarked images?
-
2 RepliesDid Coke make Pepsi stop this commercial? If not, I smell hypocrisy.
-
1 ReplyEdited by lonepaul2441: 2/15/2013 5:36:34 PMWow they have coke shown in an advert about a product i has nothing to do with. The only thing taking down this advert will do is stop the advertising of a product which could harm the drinks industry. Coke doesn't want to admit that though.
-
Of course they will only enforce and pursue the trademarks when it is in their favor to do so.
-
3 RepliesEdited by Malfar: 2/15/2013 5:44:28 PMI would say that Coka Cola has a valid point. The photo in the article looks as if the cans and bottles were placed in such a manner as to show the labels. Which in my opinion is a poke and Coke, and is subliminally telling people that our products are better than this garbage. I also agree with RighteousTryant, Coka Cola is worried, and rightfully so, I'd use a SodaStream, I'm sure it would make an awesome party size scotch and soda!
-
17 RepliesEdited by Mad Max: 2/15/2013 5:37:08 PMWhile silly, I see it as valid, actually. As a business, Coca Cola has a right to allow [or disallow] the use of their products in tv, movies, games, advertisements. Since the cans of soda with Coca Cola's logos on them are being used in the commercial without their expressed consent, they can ask [or in this case, force] SodaStream to stop running the ads that include their product. There's plenty of off-brand "cola" cans they could use, or block out the Coca Cola-related logos on the cans with tape or paper.
-
In the end, I think SodaStream hurts off-brand cola the most. Consumers are already willing to pay a hefty premium for Pepsi/Coke over store-brand cola because of flavor - if SodaStream allows consumers that same ability in their kitchen, I see store-brand getting screwed more.
-
Guess I should mail Coca Cola back all my empty cans after I'm done with them?
-
Shows you that Coke is worried. Good. Also, agree on utter bullshit.
-
You own nothing, you rent everything. Apparently.