Rich Energy drop Haas. No...Really. Seriously...
Discussion
Hi said:
I can't wait for this in the next netflix series. I want to see/hear Horner's reaction! Fingers crossed it isn't all cut-out for legal/corporate reasons.It's obviously not cool for him to be tweeting such things about Horner - basically a totally unprovoked personal attack coupled with an outright lie about RE being the number one energy drink!? And #betterthanredbull... There is a lot in that tweet for a Horners lawyers, Red Bull's Lawyers and trading standards to react to. What a muppet.
Having said all that, it's sadly quite interesting and mildly amusing watching this spectacle
Vaud said:
Where do you get Trading Standards interest from?
They're (he is..) claiming a superior product in a commercial publication without citing the basis. #betterthanredbull. Based on what? That would be enough. The fact that there is also an obvious bare-faced lie 'the worlds leading energy drink'. That's equivalent to an Auto manufacturer claiming they make the worlds fastest/most popular sports car - despite the fact they hardly have any to sell, the car is illegal and the reviews are pitiful.TheDeuce said:
RB's legal team would have no qualms looking into RE's company structure/website etc and referring anything not quite correct (or in this case, massively amateur and unacceptable) to the relevant authorities
Is there any evidence that they have ever done this to anyone?TheDeuce said:
They're (he is..) claiming a superior product in a commercial publication without citing the basis. #betterthanredbull. Based on what? That would be enough. The fact that there is also an obvious bare-faced lie 'the worlds leading energy drink'. That's equivalent to an Auto manufacturer claiming they make the worlds fastest/most popular sports car - despite the fact they hardly have any to sell, the car is illegal and the reviews are pitiful.
Not a chance. TS don't the have the resources to deal with day to day issues, let alone twitter nonsense.C Lee Farquar said:
TheDeuce said:
RB's legal team would have no qualms looking into RE's company structure/website etc and referring anything not quite correct (or in this case, massively amateur and unacceptable) to the relevant authorities
Is there any evidence that they have ever done this to anyone?If you were suing a dodgy builder for botching your extension and you heard they had done a cash in hand job for a gloating neighbour, would you a) Tell HMRC and increase pressure on them ahead of the court hearing for you claim or... b) not.
Vaud said:
TheDeuce said:
They're (he is..) claiming a superior product in a commercial publication without citing the basis. #betterthanredbull. Based on what? That would be enough. The fact that there is also an obvious bare-faced lie 'the worlds leading energy drink'. That's equivalent to an Auto manufacturer claiming they make the worlds fastest/most popular sports car - despite the fact they hardly have any to sell, the car is illegal and the reviews are pitiful.
Not a chance. TS don't the have the resources to deal with day to day issues, let alone twitter nonsense.My point is that Mr Beardy is in a greenhouse throwing stones, and he is leaving himself exposed to the interest of many that 'could' make an example of him. In business, in general that's not a good position to put ones self in.
TheDeuce said:
No reason there ever would be. But clearly if you are entering a public legal battle with another corporate, then if your lawyers find any ancillary wrong doings on their side they will pass on the info to whoever it might concern. It increases pressure on the guys you're battling with.
If you were suing a dodgy builder for botching your extension and you heard they had done a cash in hand job for a gloating neighbour, would you a) Tell HMRC and increase pressure on them ahead of the court hearing for you claim or... b) not.
a)If you were suing a dodgy builder for botching your extension and you heard they had done a cash in hand job for a gloating neighbour, would you a) Tell HMRC and increase pressure on them ahead of the court hearing for you claim or... b) not.
Unless the pressure can be released in return for payment, it is useless as a negotiation tool. HMRC won’t back off just because I’ve been paid, and threatening to do so is potentially blackmail (if it pressures them to prefer me as a creditor then it is obtaining for me an advantage not otherwise obtainable by use of the threat).
And I don’t want HMRC taking all the money that’s left.
Why would you choose a) in that circumstance? After the event, for revenge, sure...
skwdenyer said:
a)
Unless the pressure can be released in return for payment, it is useless as a negotiation tool. HMRC won’t back off just because I’ve been paid, and threatening to do so is potentially blackmail (if it pressures them to prefer me as a creditor then it is obtaining for me an advantage not otherwise obtainable by use of the threat).
And I don’t want HMRC taking all the money that’s left.
Why would you choose a) in that circumstance? After the event, for revenge, sure...
It was just an example - and you'r correct, it was a poor example as HMRC do override almost all other creditors.Unless the pressure can be released in return for payment, it is useless as a negotiation tool. HMRC won’t back off just because I’ve been paid, and threatening to do so is potentially blackmail (if it pressures them to prefer me as a creditor then it is obtaining for me an advantage not otherwise obtainable by use of the threat).
And I don’t want HMRC taking all the money that’s left.
Why would you choose a) in that circumstance? After the event, for revenge, sure...
I think the point stands though. If you want to defeat someone in any battle then putting as much pressure on them as possible is a good idea. As in life, as in F1...
Specifically with regard to RB's claim - I don't think they want or need a penny if they win. They just want to win because Storey has been extremely rude towards them. Also, it's a good way to make public that they WILL protect their IP.
M3ax said:
Vaud is correct. TS won’t go near it. Regardless if it’s referred to them or not. Red bull claim that their product gives you wings. It doesn’t. Trading Standards haven’t gone after them on that point as far as I know.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11155731/13m-lawsuit-proves-Red-Bull-doesnt-give-you-wings.htmlMaybe not trading standards but....
M3ax said:
Vaud is correct. TS won’t go near it. Regardless if it’s referred to them or not. Red bull claim that their product gives you wings. It doesn’t. Trading Standards haven’t gone after them on that point as far as I know.
There is a difference between claiming what a product inspires, especially if playing upon a common saying - to directly comparing the performance of your own product to a competitors without citation or basis.In any case, in the end it's more likely trading standards would give an opinion if demanded, which would in turn be presented in court to support a claim from the party that felt their own product/IP had been falsely compared to.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff