News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Ryver: Why we run negative ads against Slack.

Re:Ryver: Why we run negative ads against Slack by 8ytecoder on Wednesday September 07, 2016 @02:02PM (#12445580)
The first thing that stuck me watching TV in the US was negative ads. Drug ads came next. It was so new to me at that time I was puzzled how they could even use their trademarks[1]. I never felt compelled by any of these negative ads - not a single one. It exposes more weakness in the attacking company and more importantly it felt like - "Why are you guys buying that other product? We make so much better product." - as if the customer does not know what they are doing (even if that were the case).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advertising

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Ryver: Why we run negative ads against Slack by mcherm on Thursday September 08, 2016 @08:52AM (#12452458)
> I was puzzled how they could even use their trademark

Important point about trademark law: it is intended to prevent you from fooling customers into thinking they are buying someone else's product, NOT to prevent you from talking about someone else's product.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Ryver: Why we run negative ads against Slack by patsullivan on Friday September 09, 2016 @12:42PM (#12463857)
As long as you put TM on their logo you are fine to mention a competitor.
[ Parent | on HN ]