> I don't believe that crap about pepsi

TVNZ didn't either until they tried, but Coke paid $50m and they
are fiercely protective of the territory they've marked out. Like our
cat is. If "no Pepsi allowed" is stipulated on the ticket (a contract
document), and they were allowed to make that a condition of
their sponsorship they'd be within their rights to enforce it. Same
as enforceable alcohol bans I've seen on concert tickets. If you
or I had the same clout as Coke, Microsoft, Visa, MacDonalds etc
we'd do it too. As for shirts, be interesting to see what would happen.
Obviously cans of Pepsi would be more common than Pepsi shirts
so possibly they're being fairly rational and might not insist on
stripping a Pepsi Appreciation Society coach party

I know I've heard of other cases like this in the past, one that
comes to mind was a major sponsor, a sports shoe company
that starts with "N", causing merry hell when a team turned up
wearing shoes that started with "A". Took hours to sort out. One
other was a rugby series sponsored by beer1 that had problems
with two of the teams sponsored by beer2.  Beer2 wants to keep
its logo on the shirts, beer1 doesn't want them seen on TV. A
mess for the lawyers

When it comes to trade names there are examples that seem heavy-
handed but obviously make economic sense to the name-owner. In
NZ there have been cases of small establishments being taken to
court because they tried to use the names Hilton, Playboy and Harrods
as part of a building name. Disney ordered a playground mural painted
over because Disney characters were mixed in with Warner Bros
characters. Big companies don't get big by being nice guys (behind
the scenes anyway)

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu