Pepsi using the Coke logo in their Super Bowl ad

[psychonaut]

@Acsenray

What is your actual level of expertise in trademark law? In the United States, and (I believe) in all countries that are members of the International Olympic Committee have passed, pursuant to international treaty, separate laws that absolutely bar the use of the term “Olympic” by anyone except with the authorization of the U.S. Olympic Committee or its equivalent. So the likelihood of confusion standards of regular trademark cases don’t even apply here. It’s an absolute exclusive right.

This reminds me of a recent Diamond Geezer post lampooning the new legal restrictions on the use of the words “London” and “2012”:

@Diamond Geezer

We demand that you change your behaviour and amend your speech. Watch, and learn:

• Instead of "Today is January 3rd 2012" say "Today is three days after 2011."
• Instead of signing legal documents "03/01/2012" write "03/01/12"
• Instead of "My baby is due in June 2012" say "I'm having a baby in a special year, I am very blessed."
• Instead of "Do you have any 2012 tickets?" say "Do you have any Inspirational National Event tickets?"
• Instead of "2012 is turning out to be a shit year already" say "I think I'll just pop down to John Lewis and buy a cuddly Mandeville."

In July, it will also become illegal to mention the word “London” in public. We will issue further instructions at this time.

He’s only half-joking—the British Parliament really did pass a law, the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006, which effectively prohibits the use of these words in certain combinations, except by the Olympics organizing committee and its official sponsors.* According to LOCOG’s own guidelines, the prohibited expressions are

@LOCOG

– any two of the words: Games, Two Thousand and Twelve, 2012, Twenty-Twelve
OR
– any word in the list above with one or more of the words: London, medals, sponsors, summer, gold, silver, bronze

*Technically, the only real crime is creating a false association between a business and the Olympics, regardless of what language is used, but the Act singles out a number of particular words and expressions for special consideration by the courts.

[radar1974]

I can’t comment on US laws, but I know the ruling changed only a matter of a few years ago in the UK. Before then, if you were advertising a washing powder (for example) you would have ot say it was better than ‘Brand X’ or similar. The use of any other tradename was not allowed in TV or billboard advertising.

Now the law states UK advertisers CAN use other tradenames and products to advertise their own as long as they are 100% truthful. In reality, it’s still not become very common on UK Television as the rivals could easily change their product making the expensive advert worthless.

(e.g Daz says it cleans 50% better than Ariel, but as soon as the advert is released, Ariel announces it has changed it’s formula. Without more tests, Daz would have to pull it’s adverts as it could no longer guarentee it’s claim was true)

Billboard advertising in the UK uses it much more frequently though, mainly because these types of adverts only have a shelf life of a few weeks. I remember very soon after the law change, Burger King ran a series of billboard adverts comparing the size of their burgers to MacDonalds, and displaying pictures of both burgers side by side.

So, in conclusion, in the UK you are allowed to mention or display other trade-named products or companies in your advert as long as everything stated is 100% accurate.

[Acsenray]

It seems to me that in the United States anyway a lot this kind of advertising just avoids making factual claims. What kind of facts can a soda commercial include anyway?

[psychonaut]

@Acsenray

It seems to me that in the United States anyway a lot this kind of advertising just avoids making factual claims. What kind of facts can a soda commercial include anyway?

Plenty. To name a few:
[ul]
[li]Most people prefer the taste of Brand X over Brand Y.[/li][li]Celebrity A endorses Brand X.[/li][li]Convicted serial killer B endorses Brand Y.[/li][li]Brand X has fewer calories than Brand Y.[/li][li]Brand Y contains 50% more chemicals known to be carcinogenic.[/li][li]Drinking Brand Y is dangerous because some of the cans contain syringes.[/li][/ul]

[Sparky812]

@psychonaut

Plenty. To name a few:
[ul]
[li]Convicted serial killer B endorses Brand Y.[/li][li]Drinking Brand Y is dangerous because some of the cans contain syringes.[/li][/ul]

These two would not be permissible, even if true, because they violate the rules for fair, and/or nominal use, and comparative advertising.

The user does nothing to suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark holder. This applies even if the nominative use is commercial, and the same test applies for metatags.

Also (no link at the the moment) there is a clause somewhere about disparagement. Basically, you can present information as to why your product is better than a competitor’s but cannot make claims about why a competitor’s product is worse.

[Acsenray]

@psychonaut

Plenty. To name a few:
[ul]
[li]Most people prefer the taste of Brand X over Brand Y.[/li][li]Celebrity A endorses Brand X.[/li][li]Convicted serial killer B endorses Brand Y.[/li][li]Brand X has fewer calories than Brand Y.[/li][li]Brand Y contains 50% more chemicals known to be carcinogenic.[/li][li]Drinking Brand Y is dangerous because some of the cans contain syringes.[/li][/ul]

I assumed “statements of fact that a modern soda commercial is likely to make.”

Most soda commercials these days don’t make any claims. They largely position themselves as lifestyle choices as as being “cooler” than the competitor, which is not a claim of fact.

As far as endorsements go, I can’t remember seeing a commercial in my lifetime that says “Celebrity X endorses Y.” Celebrity X is shown speaking for himself or herself.

[md2000]

There was a bit of controversy over the old 7-Up commercials; they used a tagline “no artificial additives, never had, never will.” This was a clever subterfuge. Apparently caramel, burnt sugar, was considered an artificial additive, and was used by both colas. However, even thier combined firepower could not buy caramel off the “artificial additive” list, IIRC.