Doesn't the BRC LLC generally frown on this sort of thing?

jkisha wrote:Well that's an interesting twist. They aren't actually selling anything. All they're asking you to do is like them, and they are then raffling off tickets. I think this might be hard to prevent, though I could be wrong. They aren't using the name as any sort of endorsement for their product.
1durphul wrote:jkisha wrote:Well that's an interesting twist. They aren't actually selling anything. All they're asking you to do is like them, and they are then raffling off tickets. I think this might be hard to prevent, though I could be wrong. They aren't using the name as any sort of endorsement for their product.
What about the image of the man though?
Savannah wrote:I'm not addressing the topic at the top of the page--which I feel two ways about. I'm merely saying that one will probably not receive a message back from IP@.
However, I still find it worth doing. Especially when I think someone is a sneaky, opportunistic git . . . or their workmanship is shoddy. That's the worst.
jkisha wrote:I'll be curious how or even if they reply.
jkisha wrote:Maybe not. But the reason I'd be curious is that I'm nit sure it's a violation of use. There are lots of companies that give away products or services made by other companies as incentives, and often use the company's mark in their advertising. Banks giving away toasters is the first thing that comes to mind, but there are many others. I did a promotion where I was giving away copies of Microsoft Software and used their mark, as the software I was giving away was theirs and the mark identified it as an authentic product.
I would think if I were to have a promotion and the prize was burning man ticks that I bought and paid for, the use of their mark as proof of authenticity would be OK.
BBadger wrote:BMOrg got back to me. The problem has been fixed. Great work on everyone's part.
Return to “Philosophical Center”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests