Ray-Ban Asks Rand Paul to Quit Selling Their Product

[Political Junky]

The Right gets hit again ... seems folks don't like their endorsements.

Rand Paul Yanks Ray-Bans After Complaint From Company

Ray-Ban has asked Sen. Rand Paul’s presidential campaign to quit selling the brand’s Wayfarer sunglasses, which Paul had imprinted with the “Rand” logo.

The Rand-Ban sunglasses were for sale for $150 on Paul’s website as recently as Tuesday. The website described the product as “the intersection of politics and cool.”

Read the whole story at The Hill

 

[Ernie S.]

Should a company be forced to sell a product to someone who's politics they disagree with?

 

[Missourian]

 

[Statistikhengst]

Should a company be forced to sell a product to someone who's politics they disagree with?

That's not the issue. This issue is of taking someone's product and putting your brand on their brand and then re-selling the product, which is in violation of the law, unless a contract to do this exists.

But the campaign didn’t have Ray-Ban’s consent, and the company didn’t like that.

“We learned that the Rand Paul campaign had been selling Ray-Ban sunglasses imprinted with the “Rand” logo without our consent,” Jane Lehman, head of corporate communications for Luxottica, that parent company of Ray-Ban, wrote in an email to The Hill.

“After a formal request from us, they promptly removed the product from their site and agreed to cease any further use of our trademarks,” she wrote.

Which part of the words "the law" and "free market" do you not understand?

 

[Ernie S.]

I understand free market and the fact that once I buy a pair of sunglasses, I own them. Or does Hewlit Packard tell you you can't surf gay porn sites with their computer?

 

[Steinlight]

Should a company be forced to sell a product to someone who's politics they disagree with?

That's not the issue. This issue is of taking someone's product and putting your brand on their brand and then re-selling the product, which is in violation of the law, unless a contract to do this exists.

But the campaign didn’t have Ray-Ban’s consent, and the company didn’t like that.

“We learned that the Rand Paul campaign had been selling Ray-Ban sunglasses imprinted with the “Rand” logo without our consent,” Jane Lehman, head of corporate communications for Luxottica, that parent company of Ray-Ban, wrote in an email to The Hill.

“After a formal request from us, they promptly removed the product from their site and agreed to cease any further use of our trademarks,” she wrote.

Which part of the words "the law" and "free market" do you not understand?

Trademark law is the antithesis of a free market. It is by definition state imposed monopoly wherein only a certain individual or firm can produce a specific product.

You don't understand quite a bit about basic economics. You ought to stick to shilling for Hilary like the fucking tool you are. Leave concepts like trademark and copyright law for adults.

 

[Missourian]

Strangely, my local Ford dealer puts their logo on the back of Chevys, Nissans and Hyundais without any contract.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Strangely, my local Ford dealer puts their logo on the back of Chevys, Nissans and Hyundais without any contract.

i have always made whichever dealer selling me a car or truck

take off their logo

unless they give me a discount

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Right gets hit again ... seems folks don't like their endorsements.

Rand Paul Yanks Ray-Bans After Complaint From Company

Ray-Ban has asked Sen. Rand Paul’s presidential campaign to quit selling the brand’s Wayfarer sunglasses, which Paul had imprinted with the “Rand” logo.

The Rand-Ban sunglasses were for sale for $150 on Paul’s website as recently as Tuesday. The website described the product as “the intersection of politics and cool.”

Read the whole story at The Hill

It's actually amateur politics as opposed to a 'presidential campaign.'

 

[OnePercenter]

Strangely, my local Ford dealer puts their logo on the back of Chevys, Nissans and Hyundais without any contract.

They didn't re-brand the Chevrolet, and contractually, car dealers can place advertising on the cars they sell.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Left wingers are such whiners. Instead of taking advantage of the free marketing they whine. The Pretenders singer bitching about Rush Limbaugh using their song as his theme music. The Washington Nationals downplayed and all but removed images of the century-old 'W' logo because it reminded left wing whiners too much of W Bush. They replaced it with the 'DC' logo. Now that he's been out of office long enough they've gone back to the W and dropped the DC. Too bad because the DC stood for Dick Cheney! A-ha-ha!

 

[Missourian]

Strangely, my local Ford dealer puts their logo on the back of Chevys, Nissans and Hyundais without any contract.

They didn't re-brand the Chevrolet, and contractually, car dealers can place advertising on the cars they sell.

And Kazmier Lincoln Mercury doesn't have a contract with Chevrolet.

I don't think he rebranded it either...just put his advertising on it.

Got a picture?

EDIT: Nevermind, I found one...not rebranded, just added advertising.

 

[ScienceRocks]

How is defunding our science programs which will get people killed and cutting infrastructure funding = cool?

 

[ScienceRocks]

I guess riding around on a horse too you people is cool!

 

[Missourian]

I guess riding around on a horse too you people is cool!

Uh, yeah...riding around on a horse IS cool.

 

[EverCurious]

First-sale doctrine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Application in trademark law[edit]
With reference to trade in tangible merchandise, such as the retailing of goods bearing a trademark, the first sale doctrine serves to immunize a reseller from infringement liability. Such protection to the reseller extends to the point where said goods have not been altered so as to be materially different from those originating from the trademark owner.



I suspect that there may also be a conflict in the deception area of standard trademark and copyright law because of a possible opinion/idea in the general public that Ray-Ban somehow supported or endorsed Rand; when it is unquestionably in their best interest that the public doesn't associate their glasses with any specific politician or political viewpoint.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I understand free market and the fact that once I buy a pair of sunglasses, I own them. Or does Hewlit Packard tell you you can't surf gay porn sites with their computer?

Sure you own them. But reselling them with a new brand label without consent of the original producer is illegal.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Statistikhengst]

Should a company be forced to sell a product to someone who's politics they disagree with?

That's not the issue. This issue is of taking someone's product and putting your brand on their brand and then re-selling the product, which is in violation of the law, unless a contract to do this exists.

But the campaign didn’t have Ray-Ban’s consent, and the company didn’t like that.

“We learned that the Rand Paul campaign had been selling Ray-Ban sunglasses imprinted with the “Rand” logo without our consent,” Jane Lehman, head of corporate communications for Luxottica, that parent company of Ray-Ban, wrote in an email to The Hill.

“After a formal request from us, they promptly removed the product from their site and agreed to cease any further use of our trademarks,” she wrote.

Which part of the words "the law" and "free market" do you not understand?

Trademark law is the antithesis of a free market. It is by definition state imposed monopoly wherein only a certain individual or firm can produce a specific product.

You don't understand quite a bit about basic economics. You ought to stick to shilling for Hilary like the fucking tool you are. Leave concepts like trademark and copyright law for adults.

And you need to learn that we are a land of laws and that trademark laws protect the free market against piracy. But I wouldn't expect a fucking Nazi like you to understand this.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Statistikhengst]

I understand free market and the fact that once I buy a pair of sunglasses, I own them. Or does Hewlit Packard tell you you can't surf gay porn sites with their computer?

Project much, bubba?

Your lack of understand of the most basic principles and laws is just astounding.

Well, actually, it's not.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Strangely, my local Ford dealer puts their logo on the back of Chevys, Nissans and Hyundais without any contract.

They didn't re-brand the Chevrolet, and contractually, car dealers can place advertising on the cars they sell.

And Kazmier Lincoln Mercury doesn't have a contract with Chevrolet.

I don't think he rebranded it either...just put his advertising on it.

Got a picture?

EDIT: Nevermind, I found one...not rebranded, just added advertising.

View attachment 40162

Uh, that IS rebranding.

Now, to your car dealerships: the Big 3 and more ASK for those dealerships to sell their product. It is a symbiosis that is wished for by the auto-makers.

Which part of that do you not understand?