Whether it is Apple versus Samsung, McDonald’s versus Burger King, or Coke versus Pepsi, inter-firm brand rivalries can be observed in various markets. Rivals engage in public conflict via aggressive advertising campaigns, back-and-forth exchanges on social media, or even lawsuits. But it is not just firms that battle it out. Consumers often usurp brand rivalries and fight them out vicariously (Converse & Reinhard, 2016). Such inter-consumer brand rivalries feature heated discussion, trash talk, and even insults between users of opposing brands (Hickman & Ward, 2007; Muñiz & Hamer, 2001). Labeled as destructive competition that shares many characteristics with intergroup conflict, rivalry has commonly been negatively connoted (Vogler, 2011). Detrimental effects have been identified for both brands and consumers. For example, research on comparative advertising suggests that inter-firm brand rivalries escalate quickly (Beard, 2010). War-like competitive interactions like advertising battles can lead to price wars where both brands suffer (Chen, Raju, & John Zhang, 2009; Heil & Helsen, 2001). Although consumers benefit in the short term via lower prices, they receive lower quality and less service orientation in the long run (Heil & Helsen, 2001; Van Heerde, Gijsbrechts, & Pauwels, 2008). In addition, inter-consumer brand rivalry has been linked to a range of unethical behaviors, such as intergroup conflict, trash talk, ridicule, stereotyping, hostility, and schadenfreude (Ewing, Wagstaff, & Powell, 2013; Hickman & Ward, 2007; Phillips-Melancon & Dalakas, 2014). The expression of oppositional brand loyalty can be detrimental for both brands and consumers because it reduces product adoption (Thompson & Sinha, 2008) and consumer-to-consumer helping behavior (Thompson, Kim, & Smith, 2016). As a result, much of the research on inter-consumer relations in the social psychological literature has focused on finding ways to reduce such conflict (e.g., Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, 2002). However, rivalry research suggests that rivalry is a double-edged sword with ambivalent consequences (Kilduff, Elfenbein, & Staw, 2010). In line with this notion, preliminary findings indicate that rivalry can also have beneficial consequences for the competing parties. Libai, Muller, and Peres (2009) show that brands can benefit from communication between customers of competing brands by helping build interest in a new product category. As for consumers, qualitative work indicates that inter-consumer brand rivalries can provide consumers with identity, pleasure, and entertainment (Muñiz & O’Guinn, 2001; Seraj, Kozinets, & Toker, 2015). Despite these initial findings, scholars usually advise brands to stay away from rivalry (Leigh & Thompson, 2013; Phillips-Melancon & Dalakas, 2014), prompting most brands to avoid conflict rather than embrace it (Fournier & Lee, 2009). This research takes a contrasting view and sets out to show key benefits of inter-firm rivalry and interconsumer rivalry for brands and consumers. Based on the notion that conflict strengthens the distinctiveness of the involved parties (Muñiz & Hamer, 2001; Simmel, 1996), we propose that rivalry helps brands to be perceived as distinct from competitors and drives consumer group distinctiveness. Studies 1 and 2 focus on inter-firm brand rivalry and perceived brand distinctiveness, while Study 3 investigates inter-consumer brand rivalry and perceived consumer group distinctiveness. Study 4 links both types of rivalry—showing how inter-firm rivalry can be used to promote inter-consumer rivalry to the benefit of consumers as well as firms.