Possible ban on certain colour schemes?

[ArrowsFA1]

No, a black car designed to evoke a JPS fag packet is illegal.

Heaven help Classic Team Lotus (the real-link-back-to-the-past-Team-Lotus) then

[schmenke]

Heaven help Classic Team Lotus (the real-link-back-to-the-past-Team-Lotus) then

Back to the past, perhaps, but interestingly the "links" page includes this site:

http://www.lotuscars.com/en/index

Which is also:

http://www.grouplotus.com

[mstillhere]

So a black car with gold lettering is illegal simply because a single particular brand of cigarettes is also sold in a black package with gold lettering?


Can The canadian govenment prove that the team is receiving financing from Imperial Tobacco and subliminally advertizing cigarettes. Of course not, as that is NOT the case. IS IT? Maybe if there hadn't been a 25 year break since that livery was actually last linked with a cigarette brand and Imperial Tobacco had been proven to be sponsoring the Lotus Renault team, I might say there was some manner of a case, but it's just BS. I suppose I can't have a baby blue and white car either? Or a red and white car? or a yellow car? or a white car? Or a silver and black car?

Wasn't Canada going to impose a law banning ANY branding of cigarette packaging whatsoever? Everyone would have to sell generically packaged cigarettes with a simple name on the package?


Yet another case of liberal f-tards screwing with peoples lives.

Wasn't Ferrari asked to get rid of a bar code showing on a small place of their car their car that was linked specifically to Marlboro cigarettes? I think once someone draws the link between something and a cigarette company it's all over.

[nigelred5]

Yeah, but in the case of Ferrari, They WERE receiving substantial sponsorship from Marlboro, and as I recall, they continue to do so. The point is, this is a link to a paint scheme, not a damn package of cigarettes or more importanty, Tobacco sponsorship or advertising. Are they going to ban the Andretti clan from wearing the trademark red stripe on their helmets. That is after all a remnant of Viceroy sponsorship from what, 1972.

This , or any incarnation of Lotus hasn't received tobacco money in decades. It's still bu!!$#!!

If they were using the same font and mocking the JPS logo they might have a case.

I supose they will need to ban gold pinstripes on all black cars in Canada, let it be construed as tobacco advertising.

[Rollo]

No, a black car designed to evoke a JPS fag packet is illegal.

It's a direct, INTENTIONAL copy of a livery JPS designed and paid for to evoke their fag packets. If LRGP didn't realise that, they're morons.

English translation: This is not a pipe.
Actually this is not just "not a pipe", it's a computer display of a JPEG representation of a painting of an artist's impression of a pipe.

How many iterations do they wish to go before the thing isn't the thing which it's supposed to represent?

Besides which, the colour scheme itself was created in 1968 by John Player & Sons to evoke the Shelby Mustang GT350H. The 350H was specifically released to be rented through Hertz Rent a Car, but was soon stopped as they realised that the cars were being rented to be used as getaway cars from bank robberies.

It's a direct intentional copy of a livery JPS designed and paid for to evoke their fag packets, which itself was designed to evoke a colour scheme for a rental car company. The mind boggles

[JackSparrow]

Rubish

[Rollo]

Team Gold Leaf Lotus appeared at the 1968 Monaco GP, but the black JPS Lotii didn't appear until the 1972 Argentine GP. Imperial Tobacco registered the black and gold trademark in 1968, and the brand followed in the UK in 1970.

The Shelby 350H looks like this:

And there's a neat article here:
http://www.examiner.com/auto-review-...-driver-s-seat

[Hawkmoon]

I think the amusing thing is that racing fans see black and gold and think "Lotus", not JPS cigarettes. Lotus-Renault are reviving that livery becuase it is synonomus with Team Lotus, not because they want to evoke memories of JPS. Sure there's a link there but it's an incidental one in this case.

[Tumbo]

See end of the day this is all about legal interpretation - someone who works for anti-tobacco is always going to give a completely strong anti-toabcco viewpoint no question about it.

Now the main issue which will arise here is in relation to tobacco sponsership - a car which has NO links to tobacco, receives no sponsership $ from tobacco and which runs nothing more than a classic COLOUR scheme - are they contravening the actual WORDING of the Act.

Having read through the relevant legislation (albeit briefly in the last 15mins) i've looked through what seem to be the sections of issue here and they all refer to ACTUAL promotion, sponsership attempts and the like and here we have something which seems to fall outside the scope of the legislation.............just wait tho any lawyer worth his salt would argue that BUT quite simple for legislature to change it up

[Big Ben]

The whole idea that color schemes could be interpreted as hidden tobacco advertising is really ridiculous.... there are only two ways to fight this... bigger taxes and banning smoke from as many places as possible. If they think people start/keep smoking because the renaults are gold and black they are not too smart. I had now idea they're is a cigarettes brand that uses this colors before they brought it up.