>it's strong evidence that we shouldn't be uniquely concerned over negative portrayals of trademarks.
Again I'm not sure how it's evidence of that, but I agree that we should not be uniquely concerned about negative portrayals.
I see what you are saying now though, and I agree with you on that point.
Of course the people who make a lot of money off of positive advertising generally are the ones who stand to lose a lot of money from negative portrayals, and they also happen to have a lot of money, so it's not surprise that the law does not treat them equally.
Again I'm not sure how it's evidence of that, but I agree that we should not be uniquely concerned about negative portrayals.
I see what you are saying now though, and I agree with you on that point.
Of course the people who make a lot of money off of positive advertising generally are the ones who stand to lose a lot of money from negative portrayals, and they also happen to have a lot of money, so it's not surprise that the law does not treat them equally.