Tips on Choosing a Name (brand)

article

[ukgimp]

[ecommercetimes.com...]

Although it may be too late in the game for Google to change its name, other startups certainly can learn from the search company's name struggles. Here are seven pitfalls to avoid when considering a new name.

[trillianjedi]

Interesting article UKGimp, thanks.

I'm left a bit confused as to what the real problem with having a brand verbalised though. I appreciate enforcement becomes a little tougher - but surely no-one could, for example, come out with a search engine called "The Googler" and get away with it without it being an obvious passing off?

I can't see how a brand becoming synonymous with an action can be seen as anything other than positive for that brand? Aside from the legal implications, that's something that article didn't really go into.

As for the legal implications - I don't see those as a big deal. Are they really saying that I could start up a tissue company called "kleenex" or a vacuum cleaner company manufacturing a product called "the Hoover"?

TJ

[luckypath]

I don't know if you could start up a Kleenex company, but according to what I've read once a company's name becoes an adjective and a verb they can actually lose there trademark. It seems to be that the real harm is that competing companies can use your company name as a product description and your company is at risk of losing it's identity.

[rogerd]

Any trademark can be lost if it isn't defended. Hence, Coca Cola has worked hard to be sure "coke" means only "Coca Cola" - if you go into a restaurant (at least in the US) that serves Pepsi products and order a "coke", the server will almost certainly prompt you, "Is Pepsi OK?" I assume this is the result of aggressive mystery shopping by Coca Cola reps & stern warnings to restaurant owners who failed to make the distinction.

[BlueSky]

Yeah, I've noticed that too about restaurants. I read that Sony lost the right to its Walkman trademark in the mid-90's after it failed to get a dictionary publisher from using the word as a generic term for any portable cassette player.

[jimbeetle]

Maybe somebody can shed some enlightment on the differences between 'service marks' and 'trademarks.' (Of course, beyond the fact that one is for a service and the other for tangible goods.)

It struck me as somewhat odd that Google uses the trademark which, if I remember correctly, was issued for coffee cups, pens and other such promotional goods -- not for the search service. Does anybody know if they also hold the service mark? Are there different levels of protection between service and trade marks? Or are trademarks more universally recognized and service marks unique to the States?

[BlueSky]

Google is both a trademark and a service mark. It covers more than just promotional items. Their search service is under it too. You can look it up here: [tess2.uspto.gov...] (select basic search and enter Google). If that link doesn't work, than start here: [uspto.gov...] In the US, servicemarks are processed and treated the same as trademarks. The only difference is as you indicated one is for a service and the other for tangible goods.

[jimbeetle]

Thanks BlueSky. The one Google trademark registration I had looked at was the one for "Providing an on-line searchable database featuring" a whole bunch of promotional goods. Recently abandoned.

And wow, there's a whole bunch of google and googles stuff that's been trademarked, going back to one of my faves, good 'ol boy Barney. Very interesting stuff.