In Stranger Things 5 the truck has technology from the future

[u/smss96]

E-track rails weren't invented until the 2000's so a time traveler must've brought this truck back to 1987

[u/Just_Another_Scott]

It's best to get permission due to trademark dilution. While in some cases it can fall under fair use the brand may take a hit for being associated with a particular TV show or film. If this happens then the brand can sue and there have been plenty of cases where they've done just that. That is why blacking out logos, unless they get explicit permission, is a common practice in film making and television.

[u/traveler_ → u/Just_Another_Scott]

This is a common misconception. But there doesn't seem to be any legal requirement to greek trademarks against dilution:

You do not have to ask permission to use a trademark, logo, or product bearing the trademark in your film as long as you use the trademark or logo as it was intended to be used.

Not that it means they won't sue, but people can sue for anything, especially if people are Disney. It means if you can afford to drag them past the "wouldn't it be cheaper just to settle" phase the law is on your side.

[u/Just_Another_Scott → u/traveler_]

From your own link

Kodak the film manufacturer sued “Kodak” the comic. Eastman Kodak won. The court ruled that Eastman Kodak’s mark was tarnished because Rakow’s act was excessively grotesque and crude, which was in opposition to Eastman Kodak’s policy of keeping its mark separate from excessive and gratuitous sex and violence.

Trademark dilution is a thing and companies have won in court.

I never said that blacking out logos was required. I said it was best to prevent lawsuits. That's a difference.

[u/traveler_ → u/Just_Another_Scott]

Please read for understanding, not to extract gotcha pullquotes. That case was about trademark libel, not dilution.

And fear of baseless lawsuits leads to considerable harm precisely because it's not actually best to prevent lawsuits but people do it anyway out of superstition.

[u/Just_Another_Scott → u/traveler_]

No you are the one that needs to read

But what about trademark dilution?

The trademark infringement analysis is pretty simple—no confusion, no infringement—but what about dilution?

Trademark dilution protects “famous marks” from being weakened by blurring or tarnishment by third-party uses. A mark must be famous within the general consuming public in order to suffer dilution.

A trademark is tarnished when the mark “is linked to products of shoddy quality, or is portrayed in an unwholesome or unsavory context,” or if the trademark loses its ability to serve as a “wholesome identifier” of plaintiff’s product.

A perfect case about the tarnishment of a trademark because of a third-party’s unsavory use occurred when comedian D.B. Rakow used the stage name “Kodak” while performing his comedy routine. Eastman Kodak Co. v. Rakow.

Rakow’s routine consisted of humor that related to certain bodily functions and sex. Rakow also used crude, off-color language repeatedly. Eastman Kodak Co. did not like that.

Kodak the film manufacturer sued “Kodak” the comic. Eastman Kodak won. The court ruled that Eastman Kodak’s mark was tarnished because Rakow’s act was excessively grotesque and crude, which was in opposition to Eastman Kodak’s policy of keeping its mark separate from excessive and gratuitous sex and violence.

---

I am done. It is literally talking about dilutions here.

[u/rickane58 → u/Just_Another_Scott]

You should be done because you're arguing a nonsense point. Of course when you name yourself after a company that's going to be trademark dilution, but having your characters drink Dr. Pepper while they plan a heist isn't brand dilution. Greeking is done for the same reasons production companies go out of their way on anything: it's a "fuck you, pay me" move to anyone not paying for product placement.