Rich Energy drop Haas. No...Really. Seriously...
Discussion
TheDeuce said:
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.
TheDeuce said:
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.
Maybe BBC’s ‘Fake Britain ‘ would also be interested?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.
Either way, why don’t you file a complaint with TS and let us know what they say, and maybe we can stick to something more interesting?
(Just saying)
TheDeuce said:
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.
C Lee Farquar said:
TheDeuce said:
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.
TheDeuce said:
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.
Google "sales puffery"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.
Big Nanas said:
Maybe BBC’s ‘Fake Britain ‘ would also be interested?
Either way, why don’t you file a complaint with TS and let us know what they say, and maybe we can stick to something more interesting?
(Just saying)
I think in the spirit of this thread, it is interesting that Storey is building up resentment significant enough to make various parties want to attack him however they can. The trading standards example was one of many - right or wrong I don't feel my underlying point was not worthwhile.Either way, why don’t you file a complaint with TS and let us know what they say, and maybe we can stick to something more interesting?
(Just saying)
His conduct in mocking others combined with his own/his company's easy to identify faults is reasonably interesting. As ever on PH though, why respond to another members obvious core point when you can instead argue the periphery for the sake of it...
To be clear my point is: He has sought public audience by being audacious and mocking. Now he is in hot water and the public and those he has attacked are looking to dig up anything they can about his own conduct and dealings. The Lawyers will either claim for anything they feel has harmed their client, and anything that they have found that is wrong that they can't claim for, they will refer to someone else that might wish to take action if they think it's best for their case to make life as difficult as possible for Storey/RE.
Petrus1983 said:
In all seriousness I’m worried for the guy - fine, he blagged a few paddock passes, sent a few interesting tweets - but there gets a point at which you say “fair play, let’s grab a pint” - the other option just isn’t worth it.
That is my feeling. It's a little voyeuristic watching this downfall at this point - although, all competitive businesses are voyeuristic to the extreme..It looks as if he set out to grow his brand by mocking/hi-jacking another, and riding the free publicity that followed. Unfortunately his own house wasn't in order when those he mocked took a look at his failings, combined with the fact that the brand he sought to build now has to change it's name and at best start afresh with a slightly dubious history can't be what he hoped to achieve. And of course, the financial cost of the IP claim and whatever the true volume of product that is now illicit.
TheDeuce said:
It was just an example - and you'r correct, it was a poor example as HMRC do override almost all other creditors.
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.
Sorry, it's been a long day so I may have missed stuff - but what are RB claiming?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.
LaurasOtherHalf said:
Who, TheDeuce? Never!
Sarcasm may be the lowest from of wit. You have that, you've banked that prize - it's yours to keep.You're also in the running for the poorest way to conduct oneself given the absolute sense you're often capable of speaking.
If you disagree with something specific I have said, identify it and offer your own view. Be constructive - I'm not beyond learning if you can point out a flaw in something I have said, or how I have presented my thoughts. But jumping on someone else's light-hearted mockery of my comments stinks of taking your chance to vent your own feelings without actually adding anything to the debate.
I honestly believe you're better than that.
Europa1 said:
Sorry, it's been a long day so I may have missed stuff - but what are RB claiming?
Unauthorised use of their IP, via logo's and wording in the RE tweets. They have a point really - it's not as if RE (or whoever is tweeting..) can claim to not be playing on their IP and marketing devices.TheDeuce said:
Europa1 said:
Sorry, it's been a long day so I may have missed stuff - but what are RB claiming?
Unauthorised use of their IP, via logo's and wording in the RE tweets. They have a point really - it's not as if RE (or whoever is tweeting..) can claim to not be playing on their IP and marketing devices.Europa1 said:
TheDeuce said:
Europa1 said:
Sorry, it's been a long day so I may have missed stuff - but what are RB claiming?
Unauthorised use of their IP, via logo's and wording in the RE tweets. They have a point really - it's not as if RE (or whoever is tweeting..) can claim to not be playing on their IP and marketing devices.
Dynamic Space Wizard said:
Europa1 said:
TheDeuce said:
Europa1 said:
Sorry, it's been a long day so I may have missed stuff - but what are RB claiming?
Unauthorised use of their IP, via logo's and wording in the RE tweets. They have a point really - it's not as if RE (or whoever is tweeting..) can claim to not be playing on their IP and marketing devices.I don't imagine they're chasing money as a result - more that they wish to make an example of anyone that rips off their IP and then take's the p*ss out of their F1 efforts.
TheDeuce said:
Dynamic Space Wizard said:
Europa1 said:
TheDeuce said:
Europa1 said:
Sorry, it's been a long day so I may have missed stuff - but what are RB claiming?
Unauthorised use of their IP, via logo's and wording in the RE tweets. They have a point really - it's not as if RE (or whoever is tweeting..) can claim to not be playing on their IP and marketing devices.I don't imagine they're chasing money as a result - more that they wish to make an example of anyone that rips off their IP and then take's the p*ss out of their F1 efforts.
Dynamic Space Wizard said:
I know, but is it actually real, or just something he's made on his computer?
At this point I can't be bothered to do 'due diligence' and bother to find out. By the time we wake up tomorrow there will be a fresh chapter to this comedy no doubt.I assume it's real. If not, I expect as their IP has been toyed with in a way that is being reported in the media, it's only a matter of time before RB take action even if this isn't genuine.
In general, anyone is well advised not to use a competitors logo etc on social media to promote your own product. Especially well advised not to do so whilst simultaneously embarking on a campaign ridiculing that competitor. There can hardly be a better way to ensure a claim is made in the end.
Does that beardy t
t read all social media as a way of making himself feel better?
I’d guess he probably does.
It’s not worked out well, and as most people on here guessed he was Billy Liar right from the start - and now look at the end result - Haas look a bit silly and have a lot less money that planned for this year.
Billy Liar aka William ‘Made up’ Storey teller.
t read all social media as a way of making himself feel better? I’d guess he probably does.
It’s not worked out well, and as most people on here guessed he was Billy Liar right from the start - and now look at the end result - Haas look a bit silly and have a lot less money that planned for this year.
Billy Liar aka William ‘Made up’ Storey teller.
TheDeuce said:
I think in the spirit of this thread, ... lots of stuff ... life as difficult as possible for Storey/RE.
I think you misunderstand. My specific tease was your insistence that TS would be obliged to investigate, and when not a single person agreed, you stubbornly clung to this assertion and then tried to beat everyone down.I've copied this from the TS website:
TS website said:
You should report a company to Trading Standards if, for example:
they misled you into buying their products or services
they sold you unsafe or dangerous items
they didn’t carry out the work properly, for example, their work left your home in a dangerous state
they sold you fake or counterfeit items
they pressured you to buy something you didn’t want to buy
they sold you a car that wasn't 'roadworthy' (it would cause danger if it was on the road)
Which of those do you think applies? they misled you into buying their products or services
they sold you unsafe or dangerous items
they didn’t carry out the work properly, for example, their work left your home in a dangerous state
they sold you fake or counterfeit items
they pressured you to buy something you didn’t want to buy
they sold you a car that wasn't 'roadworthy' (it would cause danger if it was on the road)
If anything, it would be the Advertising Standards Authority, but even then we're only looking at some twitter hashtags for heavens sake. I don't recall any actual adverts stating these stupid claims.
Anyway, let's move away from this - does anyone know how we could find out what happened yesterday in court?
Big Nanas said:
Which of those do you think applies?
If anything, it would be the Advertising Standards Authority, but even then we're only looking at some twitter hashtags for heavens sake. I don't recall any actual adverts stating these stupid claims.
Anyway, let's move away from this - does anyone know how we could find out what happened yesterday in court?
You're right - TS was a bad example. Happy to move on.If anything, it would be the Advertising Standards Authority, but even then we're only looking at some twitter hashtags for heavens sake. I don't recall any actual adverts stating these stupid claims.
Anyway, let's move away from this - does anyone know how we could find out what happened yesterday in court?
As for what happened in court, I believe once summarised and whatever orders the court may make are finalised, it's a matter of public record and I'm sure the general F1 press will report on it.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff