Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Erwin_Br
Oh, but I have! Lots of times on TV commercials.
--Erwin
|
I know I'm supposed to get back on thread, but the question has been asked.
There is a fuzzy area in copyright/trademark law called
satire! A person, or company can do a satirical interpretation of an existing entity and not break any laws. I'm sure you've seen that kind of thing frequently on
Saturday Night Live take-offs of existing advertisements. I'm fairly certain the "Duracell Bunny" falls into this category.
But how, considering Eveready and Duracell are marketing the same product, did the Duracell Bunny pass the satire test? My guess is that Eveready/Gillette may have felt that the Energizer Bunny had become such a familiar product representation, (think the equivalent of Kellogg's Tony the Tiger,) that any satirical portrayal by Duracell would only bring more sales their, (Energizer's,) way. I.e., people see a pink bunny advertising batteries, they will think Energizer regardless of who is paying for the ad. My bet is that they guessed right, and so chose to leave Duracell alone.
Josh,
Please give me the name of your airbrusher. There is a reason why my pics have me wearing a hat.
Tim
