Hacker News Reader

Comment by rlayton2 | Hacker News Reader

I'd argue it is sneaky to put the competitor's name first, as most people will click quickly to move on to the website.

If ozonetel is trademarked it's generally against Google Ads TOS for competitors to use the term in ad copy. File a complaint.

Disagree in this specific situation (generally yes) - "XYZ alternative" is about as clear language as you can get. Nothing sneaky about it.

People click through search results really fast. "XYZ alternative" would be much more acceptable if it came after the real name, but putting "XYZ" as the very first word is guaranteed to cause confusion.

The result can be split two ways. Either the advertiser wasted money on a click because the consumer will seek out the true XYZ. Or the consumer will be satisfied with what they've clicked and choose to buy it.

Hopefully the metrics show that the latter is mostly happening.

It's only fraud if the advertiser counterfeits XYZ's brand on their website.

I'm worried about trademark law, not fraud per se, and consumer confusion is the gold standard.

The ad can violate trademarks even if the site behind the ad is squeaky-clean.

Trademark law does not stop you saying "my product is better than X". It only stops you saying "my product is X".

Generally, yes. But if a large fraction of people are getting confused in a specific context, then you can say "don't word it that way", even if the wording is true when you consider it in a vacuum.

If putting the other brand name first causes consumer confusion in certain places, that's a problem, even if they're not lying or even doing it on purpose.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com