I'm wondering if there might have been any particular validity to this particular rejection, or rather Coke/Pepsi being upset simply because of trademark issues given both their trademarks were used prominently in the spot.
I'm pretty sure that neither Coke nor Pepsi would have authorized SodaStream to use their logos.
Hey you might be onto something there. Since every company is very protective of their logo,materials,goods and good name. So had soda stream used a generic logo then i guess CBS wouldn't have a problem.
Since Coke and Pepsi do not sue each other over the same thing then they probably don't have a way to sue anyone else. -- I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company.
They dont need to get their permission. It is Nominative Fair Use and these things are done all the time.
If there wasnt fair use policies in place than even DSLReports would probably be in hot water for using so many registered logos/trademarks for so many different companies while bashing them for being such a failure to society and consumers.
Problem is, unless I missed it, I didn't see anything in the advert that explicitly stated that SodaStream DID NOT provide ACTUAL Pepsi/Coke products. This could lead to product confusion, meaning SodaStream was implying they were delivering actual Pepsi/Coke, just without the bottles and hence trademark infringement.
I guess then the burden is on Pepsi and Coke to prove your implications as I never once watched that commercial and thought they were providing a Coke or Pepsi product of any sort. But then again, I am probably brighter than the average American.