Views: 6441|Replies: 12

Chairman Mao's cook wins lawsuit vs PepsiCo. (Agencies) [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 4

Post time 2004-7-24 14:42:51 |Display all floors
Chairman Mao's cook wins lawsuit vs PepsiCo
(Agencies)
Updated: 2004-07-23 10:42

A former cook for Communist revolutionary Mao Zedong has won a lawsuit against U.S. food giant PepsiCo Inc. (PEP) after it used the cook's picture to advertise Lay's potato chips, state media reported Thursday.

Chairman Mao Zedong poses for a photo with three of his serving staff. Dong Linfa (the first from right) is seen in this undated photo.

PepsiCo Foods (China) Co. had no immediate comment on the report that it owes retired cook Dong Linfa 10,000 yuan ($1=CNY8.28) and a public apology following the ruling by Shanghai's Xuhui District Court, Shanghai Daily reported.

Lay's potato chips, a product of U.S. food giant PepsiCo Inc. [baidu]
It said in 2003 PepsiCo asked Dong for permission to use his picture for advertising its products, but that the deal fell through when the company wouldn't pay the CNY50,000 he demanded.

Months later, Dong found packages of Lay's potato chips in a local supermarket adorned with his photo and information about him, the newspaper said.

PepsiCo argued that it had permission to use Dong's photos because he had participated in a gourmet program it sponsored at a Shanghai vocational school, the report said.

"Even if we used the pictures without approval, it should be (up to) the school to ask the court to protect its rights," the Shanghai Daily quoted PepsiCo's lawyer, Xu Jun, as saying.

But the court ruled that portraits can't be used for commercial purposes without the agreement of the people involved.

Dong, 67, only spent a few years cooking for Mao, in the early 1960s. But he was famed for cooking one of Mao's favorite dishes, pork braised in brown sauce. He spent the rest of his career working at Shanghai's Jinjiang Hotel, a local landmark.

-----------------------------------------

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2004-7-24 18:24:44 |Display all floors

turn it round this way!

How is it possible that Dong only gets 10.000 Yuan? I mean, if Pepsico is found guilty of using the image of the cook without permision, does this only grant ten thousand?

I find it suprising. How much has Mr. Dong spent to take Pepsico to court and wait a certain amount of time?

It seems a little bit unfair to me. I see here that somebody has given a "candy" ruling to Pepsico!

Can anyboy explain this to me?

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2004-7-24 18:35:59 |Display all floors

I think that the court's ruling is very unfair, and the case should be re-opened

Since the initial deal of between Mao's shef and PepsiCo is at RMB50,000. 00 PepsiCo subsequently knowingly violated the chef's image rights in the circumstance that PepsiCo ought to have known that there was no agreement entered between the parties of allowing PepsiCo to use the shef's image. PepsiCo also knew that there is no relevance between the whatsoever vocational school and the chef and the case, even though at the time the chef was the employed by the school, if the employment is not in the capacity of being used as PepsiCo's brand image. Therefore, providing such argument to the court of is providing false evidence. The falsity lies in the relevance. The lawyer has the duty to the court to fulfil above all to serve the interests of justice. Contrary to which, is knowingly defeating the end of justice - 10 years imprisonment by a Commonwealth Crimes Act in force, jointly applicable to US companies, citizens, too.

Given above ground, I therefore think that the shanghai court rulings are very unfair to the Applicant. The bottom line that I think should be RMB50,000.00 plus legal costs should be awarded to the Applicant. RMB10,000.00 is prejudicial to the Applicant.

Be aware of those Hanjian who are very active, often speak both Chinese and another language.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2004-7-24 18:40:17 |Display all floors

Why stop there?

Copyright protection is a joke in this country. So, one Chinese gets screwed. Why don't you two question the obvious infringements constantly protected in this country.
Hypocrites!
Beware of so called Chinese patriots living in other countries.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2004-7-24 19:04:33 |Display all floors

I want to clarify to wowzers and chineseyang

That I'm neither a Chinese living in another country, nor a Hanjian. I'm an American living in Ch*na.

I find this ruling unfair. I don't mind if the applicant is a Ch*nese or a Congolese!

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2004-7-24 19:23:47 |Display all floors

to wowzers: so your intention is to be part of the hypocracy, amplifier and be p

for sure!

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2004-7-24 19:29:58 |Display all floors

yang baby

YOU are the problem. Your bigoted, hate-filled rhetoric does a disservice to China, to this forum and ultimately to yourself.
Please don't put me on one of your lists or report me to one of those international organizations to which you constantly refer.

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

BACK TO THE TOP
Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email: blog@chinadaily.com.cn
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.