OK then. From now on , yellow siena in MINE!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuri Laszlo
Printable View
OK then. From now on , yellow siena in MINE!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuri Laszlo
How bizarre that a simple colour scheme could be considered an issue. Having said that, to me Lotus colours are green and gold and not colours that have only previously been used due a sponsor association.
I think the best nod to Lotus' heritage (this applies to "Lotus"-Renault and Team Lotus) would be to find a sponsor, any sponsor, willing to pay large money to paint the car in their colours. Team Gunston in SA aside they pioneered the whole concept.
Other than that... Tobacco sponsorship tends to make you want to switch brand - not start smoking.
Trademarks such as this depend on context. So I Ferrari would be able to stop someone making sporty cars or racing cars in their colour red. Similarly Cadbury's would be able to stop someone selling food products under that colour. However they wouldn't be able to enforce a trademark for something completely unrelated, such as painting your front door that colour.
While that is true, I still think the F1 is better without tobacco sponsors, it always made me feel slightly uneasy (only slightly!) as to where the money for my favourite sport was coming from.Quote:
Originally Posted by V12
I think there is a difference though.Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
Philip Morris have consistently tried to work around the tobacco ban in F1 and the bar code was another example of that. They have (I think) recently renewed their deal with Ferrari and their clear aim is to promote the Marlboro brand, despite the ban.
Renault/Lotus's use of black & gold does not involve a sponsorship deal. It is purely an historical nod to a colour scheme. It's marketing only in the sense that an existing team are trying to associate themselves with Team Lotus, just as Tony Fernandes has done with a different colour scheme.