martin8768
Rookie
Isnt this false advertising ??
http://www.babolat.com/english/tennis/rackets/index.php?idproduit=202
' used by rafael nadal ' .
lol it says that for the APDC and APDC+ ... so which one is it babolat? filthy liars
Isnt this false advertising ??
http://www.babolat.com/english/tennis/rackets/index.php?idproduit=202
' used by rafael nadal ' .
No, I never lost a minute of sleep over paintjobs because I don't buy racquets just because of the pros.
And, no, it is not false advertising because the company did not fail to deliver a promised benefit from the use of its product.
But how do you prove that the customer was "damaged"? They still got a very playable racquet that is probably more appropriate for them to use at their level than a heavy, unforgiving pro spec racquet. I think the only way you can show "damage" is if you can prove that you can play tennis better (as well as the pro) with that pro's actual racquet than with the racquet that you purchased. Because only then can you prove that you received an "inferior" product and not the "superior" product that you thought you were buying.Fraud:
In criminal law, fraud is the crime or offense of deliberately deceiving another in order to damage them – usually, to obtain property or services unjustly.
I have not found anymore info on the lawsuit. It is either still winding it's way through the legal system or Nike very quietly settled this case.But it says in that press release that Nike is still fighting the lawsuit, so have they lost yet? And they claim that they were going to eventually release Wood's actual ball to the public anyway and it was not as a result of the lawsuit. So did the public really "win" this lawsuit?
no read it again, what i brought was junk, the players use the good stuff, dont belive me then hit with any head prestige then hit with a prestige classic QUOTE]
Remind me to sell you one of my "really it is a real diamond really" rings.
Would you mind if you bought a Wilson K-Factor and it turned out to be a Chinese knock-off? Would you mind even the specs all matched?
Is there any players that don't use paint jobs?
I don't think it's legal, I think it's false advertising. It's just that no one sued them yet.
yeah if they do that.Isnt this false advertising ??
http://www.babolat.com/english/tennis/rackets/index.php?idproduit=202
' used by rafael nadal ' .
Yes, and the great majority of those are older racquets painted to look like Microgels.I am happy to see all these Head Microgels being used by the male pros at this years US Open,
Yeah, but Sampras didn't do what he did because of ethics. He tried a lot of other racquets and just didn't like any of them better than his PS 6.0 85's. He talks about it in his book. He didn't want a paintjob because he preferred an all black racquet, and he was so sensitive about his racquets that he says he could tell if there was too much ink used for the "W" stencil on his strings. Can you imagine what a different paintjob would do to his concentration? :shock:This is where Sampras stands alone. Pete was offered more money to change his racquet or to at least paint his racquet to look like some new wilson product but he refused. More players should follow this example, if pros want to show class, start by not decieving your fans for more money.
Yeah, but Sampras didn't do what he did because of ethics. He tried a lot of other racquets and just didn't like any of them better than his PS 6.0 85's. He talks about it in his book. He didn't want a paintjob because he preferred an all black racquet, and he was so sensitive about his racquets that he says he could tell if there was too much ink used for the "W" stencil on his strings. Can you imagine what a different paintjob would do to his concentration? :shock:
Yes, and the great majority of those are older racquets painted to look like Microgels.
Yes all those 19 year olds are using discontinued Heads from 1987 painted to look like Microgels.
I hate to break it to you but many of them are using discontinued Heads from 1993. However guys like Gael Monfils and Robin Haase are using the Prestige Classic 600. The Prestige Classic 600 is technology from 1986.
I hate to break it to you but many of them are using discontinued Heads from 1993. However guys like Gael Monfils and Robin Haase are using the Prestige Classic 600. The Prestige Classic 600 is technology from 1986.
Yes, many of them are (such as Donald Young) because they are better racquets than most of the newer garbage.Yes all those 19 year olds are using discontinued Heads from 1987 painted to look like Microgels.
But what does having being born yet have anything to do with it? If a racquet from 1986 plays better than a racquet from 2006, does it matter when you were born? The racquet doesn't know when the player was born, does it?Well they must be updated by now. Monfeils wasn't even born yet when that old outdated useless in today's pro game 600 came out.
Yeah, but Sampras didn't do what he did because of ethics. He tried a lot of other racquets and just didn't like any of them better than his PS 6.0 85's. He talks about it in his book. He didn't want a paintjob because he preferred an all black racquet, and he was so sensitive about his racquets that he says he could tell if there was too much ink used for the "W" stencil on his strings. Can you imagine what a different paintjob would do to his concentration? :shock:
Yet, Sampras had no problem paintjobbing his shoes. He used to wear Wilson shoes with a Nike swoosh drawn on the sides. His racquet choice had nothing to do with ethics. It was just what he played best with and he didn't want to fool with it.I have not read his book so I dont know the details, I can see where the extra ink on the W would change the feel because its located in the sweet spot. My point is that Pete wasnt going to sell out and paint his racquet for extra money, he was more concern with winning grand slams, I would like to think that he also thought it was unethical but he would never say it just because that would insult all other pros and thats not Petes style.
But Djokjovic does use a "K-Blade Tour". What the commercials don't specifically tell you is that you can't buy HIS "K-Blade Tour" in the stores. You can only buy the RETAIL "K-Blade Tour" in the stores. But Djokovic does indeed use a "K-Blade Tour", just not the SAME "K-Blade Tour" that's available for sale to the public.... and with the novak djokovic kblade commercial. that commercial clearly is designed to give us the impression that this professional is currently using this particular product they are selling, which he is not. they don't say uses it, but they strongly imply it. that's false advertising.
But Djokjovic does use a "K-Blade Tour". What the commercials don't specifically tell you is that you can't buy HIS "K-Blade Tour" in the stores. You can only buy the RETAIL "K-Blade Tour" in the stores. But Djokovic does indeed use a "K-Blade Tour", just not the SAME "K-Blade Tour" that's available for sale to the public.
Other industries have been punished? What industry has been punished over a celebrity endorsement, where no claim is made of specific benefit to the consumer? I'd be very surprised. Companies are given enormous latitude in this regard, and it's not even clear to me that one could prove somebody doesn't use a product. Has he EVER used it? Has he used it in practice?
But I don't really see it that way. The commercials just say that "Djokovic uses a K-Blade Tour". Nowhere in the commercial do they claim that people can buy his "K-Blade Tour". Just like if Levis claimed that "Djokovic wears Levis 501 jeans", even though people can't buy the same "Levis 501 jeans" that he wears because his are custom made to fit him exactly, whereas, the rest of us can only buy the mass-produced retail versions in pre-set sizes. But Levis is still making an accurate statement when they say that "Djokovic wears Levis 501 jeans". Or if Chevrolet says that some professional race car driver "drives a Chevy Impala" without ever claiming that he drives the same "Chevy Impala" that's sold in the Chevrolet dealerships. I don't think too many people have a problem with that.That is called bait and switch. Which is illegal....
But I don't really see it that way. The commercials just say that "Djokovic uses a K-Blade Tour". Nowhere in the commercial do they claim that people can buy his "K-Blade Tour". Just like if Levis claimed that "Djokovic wears Levis 501 jeans", even though people can't buy the same "Levis 501 jeans" that he wears because his are custom made to fit him exactly, whereas, the rest of us can only buy the mass-produced retail versions in pre-set sizes. But Levis is still making an accurate statement when they say that "Djokovic wears Levis 501 jeans". Or if Chevrolet says that some professional race car driver "drives a Chevy Impala" without ever claiming that he drives the same "Chevy Impala" that's sold in the Chevrolet dealerships. I don't think too many people have a problem with that.
But do they like the APD or the APDC better? If they like the APDC better, then what's the problem? They bought a racquet that they like better than the one that Nadal uses. But if they like the APD better but bought the APDC anyway just because they think Nadal uses it, then they really don't have anyone to blame but themselves for not buying the racquet that they like better, do they?A lot of adults and teenagers i know have bought an APDC purely because Nadal uses an APD with the cortex. They want the same technology a pro is using. In my view they have lost out on the cost difference between an APD and an APDC, purely because a company is false advertising a product.
I think most of us understand that we will not be getting an identical racket. However, my issue with all this is when they say its a new technology a pro is using. I use the ADP w/ cortex and since using it my slight TE pain has gone, so my choice in purchasing that racket was not because Nadal uses it but for the technology in it. So for me i am not losing anything. BUT. A lot of adults and teenagers i know have bought an APDC purely because Nadal uses an APD with the cortex. They want the same technology a pro is using. In my view they have lost out on the cost difference between an APD and an APDC, purely because a company is false advertising a product.
breakpoint: what you're saying makes perfect sense of course. but, common sense says that 'the contents of' the mcdonald's coffee cup is hot. they were still sued over not making this point clear enough in their packaging (among other things) and LOST the suit. several pharma manufacturers have been sued and are being sued for not making packaging clear enough (going way beyond common sense). audi was successfully sued (class action in fact, if i recall) for (basically) not making it clear that a person must apply the brake before putting their automatic transmissions into drive or reverse! now the cars are placarded for such.
But I don't really see it that way. The commercials just say that "Djokovic uses a K-Blade Tour". Nowhere in the commercial do they claim that people can buy his "K-Blade Tour". Just like if Levis claimed that "Djokovic wears Levis 501 jeans", even though people can't buy the same "Levis 501 jeans" that he wears because his are custom made to fit him exactly, whereas, the rest of us can only buy the mass-produced retail versions in pre-set sizes. But Levis is still making an accurate statement when they say that "Djokovic wears Levis 501 jeans". Or if Chevrolet says that some professional race car driver "drives a Chevy Impala" without ever claiming that he drives the same "Chevy Impala" that's sold in the Chevrolet dealerships. I don't think too many people have a problem with that.
Schwuller, great post and I agree with you.the problems with this paintjob issue are based on an attempt to deceive the buying public. that's where things go wrong with this practice. they don't say that i'll be able to play like djokovic, or woods, by buying this product (something weightloss product ads are careful to avoid saying due to past lawsuits, and make very clear they are not promising). the problem is they are going to lengths to strongly suggest something that is false: that a particular touring professional is USING this product, and that this product is available for me to purchase. that's the falsehood. not the promise of similar performance, but rather that the tool this athlete is currently using is available for purchase, should i want it. they even go to extraordinary lengths to support this claim by: custom making a racket to appear to be the racket i can buy, painting this racket to appear to be the racket i can purchase. this is clearly designed to deceive the consumer. that's the problem.
djokovic can endorse it, he can have a hand in developing it; he can even say he HAS APPROVED it. but, they are strongly suggesting he is actually using it in professional tournament play. that's a falsehood that they are going to 'extraordinary lengths' to present to the consumer. and there is the problem. that is false advertising.
it's not nuts to imagine a group suing wilson, stating consumers are currently purchasing some of their products based on claims in advertising which wilson knows are false and are acting to conceal. that is not far fetched at all.
about the racing car issue: a reasonable person can clearly and easily see that the version that is for sale and the version on the track are not the same vehicle, not even close: not the same size, not the same shape, not the same length, etc etc. can a reasonable person clearly see that novak's racket is not the same kblade that is currently hanging on the shelf for sale? no; because wilson has taken great measures to conceal that fact from the consumer. so these two examples are not comparable.
sorry for the length. i'm done. but it's an interesting topic.