April 14, 2008
Shared Names Breed Kinship—But Only If Your Name is NOT Your Brand
The New York Times reported last week on an interesting side effect of the now commonplace practice of ego surfing (looking yourself up in Google). People are making friends with their Googlegängers for the same reason women named Virginia move to Virginia: we have a natural affinity for people, places, and things that share our names.
Well, usually. If your namesake happens to be a porn star, you might not be so amused. And if your name is your brand, you might feel just as annoyed by the existence of Googlegängers as record company Apple Corps Ltd did when Apple Inc. (then Apple Computer Inc.) decided to go into the music-selling business.
A company can trademark its brand name and defend it against infringement and domain squatting, within reason, anyway. Apple Inc. challenges aspiring new brand name trademarks with impartial ruthlessness.
But you can’t trademark your own personal name, and you’re not likely to get very far if you accuse someone else who has as much right to the name as you do of domain squatting in order to cash in on your success, unless you are already far more famous than they are.
So if you’re not fortunate enough to be the only person with your personal name to show up in Google, or at the very least the first one to register that name as a domain, you might be better off giving your company a unique, memorable brand name. That gives you a chance to trademark it, grab the “.com” version, and establish your brand.
What’s more, creating a strong association between your name and your company’s helps distinguish you from your Googlegängers when friends and family are trying to find you online.
Technorati Tags: Googleganger, Apple Inc, Apple Corps Ltd, Google, Domain Names, Personal Name
Posted by Diane Prange at 8:05 AM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
March 27, 2008
Will Wal-Mart Ruling Start Parody Naming Trend?
In copyright law, parody counts as “fair use.” So too in trademark law, it would seem. Wal-Mart accused Georgia resident Charles Smith of infringing on its trademark by selling products emblazoned “Wal-ocaust” and “Wal-Qaeda.”
It’s no surprise that Wal-Mart doesn’t find these particular parodies amusing, but even if Smith’s sites didn’t feature prominent disclaimers, it’s unlikely anyone would find the names—or the logos, for that matter—“confusingly similar.” The average person is plenty smart enough to realize that none of the T-shirts, posters, or bumper stickers comes from Wal-Mart.
And that’s exactly what Judge Timothy Batten concluded, as WebProNews reported. Smith is free to go on using the names “Wal-ocaust” and “Wal-Qaeda” to sell products.
Of course, Smith’s aim is to make a political point, not establish a business. Any company that chooses its name as a parody of another company risks obsolescence once the subject of the parody is no longer a household name. Some brands might continue to flourish even if no one gets the joke anymore, but if Wal-Mart went out of business, there would be no market for Wal-ocaust T-shirts.
Which is probably just what Charles Smith would love to see happen.
Technorati Tags: Wal-Mart, Wal-ocaust, Wal-Qaeda, Trademark, Charles Smith, Judge Batten, Logos, T-Shirts, Bumper Stickers
Posted by William Lozito at 4:42 PM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
March 14, 2008
Tribute or Threat? Shoetube Prompts Trademarking Questions
There are now dozens, if not hundreds, of video-sharing sites, but none so famous as YouTube. Now the clever spotters over at Springwise have discovered a niche video whose name is a tribute to that popularity.
Shoetube caters exclusively to shoe-lovers. If you’re an Imelda Marcos wannabe (oh, I am dating myself here), this site is for you.
I love the name. It’s clever, funny, and tells you exactly what you’re going to find on the site. But I do wonder about the fate of the intent-to-use trademark application that the owner of Powderhouse Productions has filed. It’s possible that even if Google doesn’t choose to file a cease-and-desist on behalf of the name YouTube, the examining attorney at the US Patent and Trademark Office will still reject the application.
There are other registered trademarks that end in “–tube,” but the rhyme makes it tricky, and the USPTO doesn’t look favorably on attempts to cash in on a competitor’s more famous name.
Of course, Google may face its own challenges (its TM for “YouTube” hasn’t made it all the way through the registration process yet), thanks to an abandoned mark for “YouTube” in the same class filed by a Belgian manufacturer of scientific equipment.
Let’s hope Shoetube makes it, but also that “-tube” doesn’t become the “i-” of 2008, with dozens of copycat names to follow.
Technorati Tags: Shoetube, YouTube, USPTO, Trademark, Shoes, Video, Shoetube, Naming
Posted by William Lozito at 1:11 PM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
February 25, 2008
What Paris Hilton and The Naked Cowboy Know About Brand Naming
There are two naming related trademark cases out there that have people smiling this morning. The first is a list on CNN of trademarked phrases from the recent past like “19-OOPS” and "Let's Get Ready to Rumble!" that are now off limits to anyone who wants to inject a little modern phraseology into their product naming because they have been trademarked.
Matt Sanchez points out that even the wordsmith Paris Hilton can “lay claim and monetize parts of the English language” for her phrase “that’s hot.”
The Traverse Legal blog thinks that trademarking your unique phrase “illustrates how some forethought can become profit down the road.” I have to agree.
I also think that New York street musician Robert Burck, a.k.a “the Naked Cowboy” might have a good case when he defends his mark against Mars for using his likeness in their advertising, not least because he seems to have actually taken out two registered trademarks on himself.
Dan Slater on the Wall Street Journal Law Blog asks what he needs to make this case, the answer actually being pretty simple. He needs to prove there is a likelihood of confusion between himself and his (trademarked and profitable) brand name and likeness, and the images in the advertisement. As Sunny Hostin points out on the CNN site, the Naked Cowboy may soon be able to afford “some very nice duds.”
Technorati Tags: Trademark, Paris Hilton, The Naked Cowboy, Lawsuit, Let's get ready to rumble!, Burck, Brand Naming
Posted by William Lozito at 7:36 AM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
January 31, 2008
Sony’s Buzz! Brand Naming Gets Buzztime Buzzing
The buzz in the blogosphere is that Sony is being sued by US based Buzztime Entertainment over the buzz naming in its Buzz! trivia game.
Buzztime does not (and probably cannot) trademark the word buzz but it is interesting to note that we are talking about two electronic games. Buzztime claims that Sony is capitalizing on its brand name and calls the trespass “"malicious, fraudulent, knowing, willful, and deliberate."
Joystiq.com wonders if the smart move would be for Sony to buy Buzztime outright to avoid a legal wrangle that it probably will lose: the two competing brand names are in a similar market and easily confused.
That said, the argument in Sony’s favor would be that buzzers and buzzing and indeed the word buzz is clearly associated with trivia games and its fair game for anyone, but I would imagine that Sony is in trouble here. They want to trademark Buzz! as well as two other versions of the word for use in the electronic trivia game field and that puts them head to head with Buzztime.
In addition, Buzztime has been around since 1985 and is pretty popular. I find it hard to believe that Sony isn’t aware that the word buzz has a certain automatic, built in association.
Technorati Tags: Sony, Buzztime, Buzz, Playstation, Trivia, Brand Naming, Trademarking
Posted by William Lozito at 7:29 AM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
January 25, 2008
Counterfeit Brand Naming Hotspot Tries To Go Legit With SilkStreet
In what Agenda Inc. refers to as a “highly ironic move,” notorious brand naming counterfeit hotspot Silk Street Market in Beijing has applied for a trademark to its own SilkStreet clothing label and warned counterfeiters not to copy it.
In what must be the most lenient criterion for reselling a high end brand in the world, the company solemnly assures us that only traders with ““no record of selling fake or shoddy products within six months and no [customer] complaints.” can sell SilkStreet brands.
This will surely raise a few eyebrows over at Burberry, Chanel, Gucci, Louis Vuitton and Prada, who won a symbolic $1,387.00 in a joint lawsuit against Silk Street and five of its tenants, “the first case in China to end in such a settlement.”
I’m thinking that it will be really hard to convince people that you are wearing a real SilkStreet shirt.
Technorati Tags: SilkStreet, counterfeit, trademarking, Brand Naming, Silk Street Market
Posted by William Lozito at 7:33 AM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
January 21, 2008
Trademarking a Product Name can be Challenging
A lawyer’s attempt to trademark the term “CyberLaw” has been met with incessant laughter across the Internet with Eric Goldman suggesting that this is “the latest would-be-funny-if-it-wasn't-so-sad attempt to assert trademark rights on a common Internet term.”
A word in common usage cannot be trademarked unless it can be proven that customers associate the word with only your company, and the word “cyberlaw” has been around for well, over a decade, and associated with, well, “cyberlaw,” for far too long for that to happen.
Eric Menhart, a “recognized leader” in the field of intellectual property and the mastermind behind this application has gone on the defensive, proclaiming to the world that he has only applied to trademark the term for one class of protection: “services rendered by lawyers to individuals, groups of individuals, organizations and enterprises.”
He would have had a better chance trademarking the term for a video game. We all use the word in this sense (as in “hiring a lawyer who practices cyberlaw can be quite expensive.”)
It does not seem likely that he will be granted the trademark, not least because he will be unable to prove that this commonly used word already has a deep association with his company naming.
Technorati Tags: Trademarking, Cyberlaw, Product Name
Posted by William Lozito at 7:31 AM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
January 9, 2008
New Car Naming is Thought Provoqing
Two new car names are raising eyebrows in the motoring industry today: the Cadillac Provoq, GM’s new hydrogen fuel-cell-powered concept car and yet to be officially named “People’s Car” by Tata.
The Provoq naming has already gotten Mork at the Trademork blog thinking about changing his name to “Morq” and prompting the Green Car advisor to say “if these guys don’t learn to spell they are going to provoke me to violence.” Hydro Kevin quips that the “Provoq is no Joke” and I must say that the very comfortable and speedy vehicle is certainly thought “provoqing.”
One name that will certainly have to go is the nickname “People’s Car” that Tata seems to have adopted for its yet to be unveiled 30 horsepower car. “People’s Car” is a direct reference to the Volkswagen, of course, and the title traditionally held by the Volkswagen Beetle, so that name is really only on loan unless Tata wants to get sued.
Aside from people’s worries over millions of new pollution causing cars hitting the roads, this car might actually bring “power to the people.”
Technorati Tags: Car Naming, Cadillac, GM, Volkswagen, People’s Car, Tata, Concept Car, Provoq
Posted by William Lozito at 8:08 AM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
December 28, 2007
Google Prevails with Gu Ge Brand Name in China
What a difference a day makes. In life. And in trademark law.
We've blogged earlier in July of 2007 about the Chinese having difficulty pronouncing Google, which led the company to re-brand its search engine "Gu Ge."
In an earlier blog of April 2006 we acknowledged the conventional marketing wisdom of one brand globally. However, in the case of China, with four times the population of U.S., it was an appropriate trade off for Google to change its name there.
It turns out that Google registered the Gu Ge brand name in China only 7 days before another company, Gu Ge Technology did.
Gu Ge Technology tried to sue Google over Gu Ge, however, the Haidian People's Court in Beijing threw out the Gu Ge Technology's trademark suit since Google registered the Gu Ge name first.
Technorati Tags: Google, Gu Ge, Trademark, China
Posted by William Lozito at 9:41 AM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
December 3, 2007
Generic Domain Names Can Be Good for Your Brand
It's true, at least according to domain name expert Jonathan Boswell of LeaseThis.com in his interview with Bill Sweetman in Marketing Martini Episode 33.
Of course, your brand name is important, but you don't just want to own the MyBrandName.com (and .biz, and .net, and .whatever) -- you want to own the words associated with your brand. Those, according to Boswell, are your real "domain assets," especially when dealing with prospective customers who don't know the leading brands in your industry by name:
-
There's been a fundamental misunderstanding in advertising in the corporate world, in that they don't want to touch generics. They're not interested in them. What they fail to realize is that a lot of consumers interface with generics. If I'm looking for a copy machine, I want to see what's out there. I want to see what's on the Internet. I'm typing in "copy machine" because I may not know specific brands.
What you want to do for maximum exposure of your brand is to follow the example of Barnes & Noble as mentioned in our post on Findability vs. Brand Dilution: buy the generic domain name and redirect it to your branded website. You get to the same page whether you type "books.com," "bn.com," or "barnesandnoble.com." That way people begin to associate your brand name with the generic term for your products or services.
Technorati Tags: Domain Names, Barnes & Noble, Generic Names
Posted by Diane Prange at 10:05 AM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
November 28, 2007
Trademarking: Knievel vs Kanyevel
Looks like Kanye West and Evel Knievel have settled their differences over West's use of Knievel's likeness and name in his video where the rapper appeared as Evel Kanyevel and re-enacted Knievel's ill fated attempt to jump the Snake River Canyon.
It is good to hear that the lawsuit Knievel launched last year has been settled "amicably," not least because the 69-year old Knievel referred to West's music in the press as "filth." It does go to show that if two people can sit down in a room and hash things out, great divides in brand naming might be resolved.
West's attorneys argued that he was protected under the first amendment because the video could be construed as "satire," which is an interesting means of defending what looked like a trademark violation.
It seems almost certain that if Knievel wanted to stick to his guns he'd have a case, not least because the video seems to damage Knievel's reputation and infringe on his trademark.
Officially, the lawsuit went into mediation, which probably means that Kanye wrote Knievel a check behind closed doors which prompted the legendary stuntman to say West was a "wonderful guy and quite a gentleman."
Technorati Tags: Kanye West, Evel Knievel, Trademark
Posted by William Lozito at 8:10 AM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
November 15, 2007
Martha Stewart Wins and Loses Katonah Brand Naming Dispute
The New York Times reports today that the dispute between Martha Stewart and her fellow residents of Katonah is now over: she will be able to use the exclusive village's name on "furniture, mirrors, and chair cushions" but not on things "such as hardware, paint, lighting and home textiles."
Her plans to create a Katonah brand hit a snag when the US Patent and Trademark Office took up the case of the Katonah Hardware store and the Katonah Village Improvement Society, which have indicated disappointment with their challenge to the domestic diva.
As I have written about this before, it seems to me that Martha is not getting much out of this deal.
Technorati Tags: Martha Stewart, Katonah, Trademark, Furniture
Posted by William Lozito at 8:50 AM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
October 30, 2007
Company Naming: Homework Pays Off
Like it or not, one of the factors in your choice of a company name is whether the name you want (and, increasingly, the domain name that goes with it) is already taken. It's always been important to check the trademark database for the country you're operating in before hanging out your shingle, unless you like getting Cease and Desist letters from those who have already legally protected "your" name, that is. But now a registered trademark isn't the only obstacle to the name you want.
In the course of writing an article about presence software for cell phones, John Cook of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer discovered that there are two companies with almost identical names offering similar services in this area: Whrrl and Whirrl. Talk about likelihood of confusion with a competitor! (That's the primary basis on which the US Patent and Trademark office denies new applications.)
Andrew at Domain Name Wire (not to be confused, of course, with NameWire) argues that the real winner of this name competition is whoever owns Whirl.com (a parked domain that takes you to findlinks.com), because that's what people will type into their address bars.
This is quite possibly true. There are arguments for and against using alternative spellings for company names, and those who think the dropped-vowel trend and most others common to Web 2.0 companies are just stupid, but the problem here isn't really with using a non-traditional spelling. There's an obvious fix for that, which is to buy the domains with the most likely misspellings and redirect them to your website.
Of course, before you can do that, the domains you want have to be available or at least for sale. To find the answer to the first question, do a search at any domain registrar. In many cases, they'll suggest alternative spellings and additional domains you might want to buy if your chosen .com is available.
If they are, you can make them an offer. If they aren't, you have to decide whether it makes better business sense to choose a different company and domain name, or to forego traffic you might miss through using an unfamiliar spelling.
In either case, it's far better to make an informed decision than to be surprised by the existence of a similarly-named competitor.
Technorati Tags: Whrrl, Whirrl, Trademarks, Company Naming
Posted by William Lozito at 8:43 AM
| Comments (1)
| TrackBack
October 26, 2007
Mercedes-Benz Adds Sound Logo to New Brand Naming Strategy
As you know, I've been blogging about Mercedes-Benz recently. The fact that company has not only implemented some serious revamping of its brand naming but also added a neat new "sound logo" is worth noting.
Adding a trademarked sound or olfactory logo to a brand name is nothing new and sometimes a bad idea.
What's interesting about Mercedes-Benz's new logo is that it's a solo vocal taken from a recording made by an English (not German) boys' choir. One Mercedes-Benz exec enthused that it is "emotional, elegant and unmistakably associated with our brand."
Technorati Tags: Mercedes-Benz, Daimler, Sound Logo, Logo Development, Automobiles
Posted by William Lozito at 10:00 AM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
September 28, 2007
World Cup 2010 Trademark Violations Already a Brand Naming Nightmare
It's three years before the World Cup in South Africa but people are already illegally making money from the 2010 World Cup logo.
FIFA has just set guidelines to help prevent fraudulent use of the logo, which some people have likened to a "frog jumping over a pork chop" and at least one blogger has been castigated for featuring a "bicycle kick," a move that is actually "whistled for a foul."
It looks like the date "2010" is set to be claimed by FIFA, much to the irritation of some South Africans. But it should be noted that the FIFA restrictions only apply to usage of words "in combination with football imagery or if it is an attempt to create an association with the 2010 World Cup, FIFA or the 2010 World Cup Organizing Committee South Africa."
To that end, there are a range of logos and marks that are protected:
- World Cup
- South Africa World Cup
- 2010
- Twenty Ten
- World Cup South Africa
- The names of virtually every South African city followed by 2010
It is a logical move on FIFA's part but it will be very hard indeed to enforce: what if a clothing maker creates a t-shirt with the words Cape Town with the World Cup colors?
This is an excellent example of how difficult it is to protect a brand name. If the rip off products are appearing already, one wonders what will be happening two years from now.
Technorati Tags: FIFA, World Cup, Football World Cup 2010,Trademarks
Posted by William Lozito at 8:58 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBackAugust 14, 2007
Johnson & Johnson Makes Brand Naming Boo-Boo; Google in the Goo(Phone)
There are two pieces of news from the world of brand naming that have me scratching my head that obviously look good on paper but just don't make a lot of sense in the real world.
First off, the news that Johnson & Johnson is going to sue the American Red Cross over the use of its, well, red cross, is what some might call PR Hari Kari.
This is like cutting off your nose to spite your chin hairs... a multi-billion dollar company taking on one of the noblest institutions in the world over its use of the red cross because the institution sells a few million bucks worth of disaster kits.
The Patent Barista says it best: "The legal case is on shaky ground, the red cross symbol is universally recognized as standing for medical care, and the PR backlash is going to be ruinous." More than that, I agree with Bill Gallagher... I challenge my readers to even find a red cross anywhere on the Johnson & Johnson web site. Go on, take a look.
C'mon. Does anyone associate Johnson & Johnson with the red cross symbol? In a different world, would it not be worth the company's time to offer the Red Cross money to share the symbol? What better logo and name is there on earth to be associated with if you make bandages, guys?
The most ridiculous name of the week comes from Google, however, who is threatening to unleash upon the world the GooPhone.
I thought it was a sick prank.
At least one report claims that it is set to take out the Apple iPhone because it will offer free service and the company will literally be giving them away. I figure that with a product name like GooPhone you'd darn well better be giving them away.
Technorati Tags: Johnson & Johnson, Red Cross, Google, Patent Barista, Bill Gallagher, GooPhone, Apple iPhone.
Posted by William Lozito at 12:29 PM
| Comments (3)
| TrackBack
July 26, 2007
Are Domain Names Becoming Brand Names in the Press?
An interesting post has been published by The Conceptualist that looks at the way established brand names are now referring to themselves in the press using their domain name.
Our proprietary analysis of company name changes showed a definate obvious shift away from dot-com names. I'm wondering, just wondering, if we're going full circle with dot-com names beginning to become in vogue again? Could this be due to the Web 2.0 influence. Or is this just another example of the natural rhythm of nature. What's out is in, and what's in is out, back to what's out is in.
But The Conceptualist has identified the fact that while the company's official name may not be a dot-com, they are happy to refer to themselves that way.
The Conceptualist points out that ABC refers to themselves as ABC.com and that Advanced Internet Technologies refers to themselves at AIT.com.
That's a darn good observation, and illustrates the fluidity of company naming.
Although it's obviously becoming easier for companies to simply refer to themselves as domain names if they want to drive traffic to their site, it also makes having a domain name that is pretty close to your company name or brand name much more important.
Obviously, your domain name has become a crucial part of naming a business.
This is all probably ringing a bell at Twentieth Century Fox, who just won its suit against a cybersquatter over The Simpsons Movie domain name.
In any event, the real game here, of course, is getting people to come to your web site without having to type in the domain directly.
Technorati Tags: The Conceptualist, ABC.com, Advanced Internet Technologies, AIT.com, Twentieth Century Fox, The Simpsons Movie.
Posted by William Lozito at 10:33 AM
| Comments (1)
| TrackBack
July 21, 2007
LEGO Brand Name Usage Pretty Complicated
An amusing post by Ken Jennings caught my eye this morning: Ken takes on one of the bugbears of product naming: How the heck do we use the word "Lego" without offending the company?
Seems that one of his readers wants us to use the word as LEGO, and we never add an "s", something I have written about before. The LEGO Company agrees.
Ken notes that the Chicago Manual of Style doesn't seem to agree, stating that the way we write ad copy is different from the way we write prose in other contexts. This means the all-caps formulation is not necessary.
Ken points out that a quick Google search (almost used that word as a verb) shows us that people just ignore these injunctions.
And nobody uses the term "LEGO bricks" — some of my staff have bags of the stuff and even though they are about as brand name conscious as can be, they admit to never, ever suggesting to their kids that they go "make something out of those LEGO bricks." It's "go make something out of Lego," which is a no-no, just as bad as "Go play with some Legos."
Friday's "Secret Diary of Steve Jobs" accuses Google employees of being "a bunch of spoiled coddled self-involved Lego-playing 20-somethings" — no, according to LEGO, they should be "spoiled twenty-somethings playing with LEGO bricks," which doesn't really work in context.
You also cannot point out to the world that "Salt n' Pepper's Here... in Lego Form" as Gearlog does in regard to a pretty nifty salt and pepper set made of LEGO bricks.
Plus you cannot tell the world about a Self-Stirring LEGO Mug (Gizmodo got the words right but forgot that nagging "bricks" as well as the registration mark).
On the other hand, maybe LEGO should just give it up and be happy that their brand name is so well recognized.
Technorati Tags: LEGO, Trademark
Posted by William Lozito at 10:31 AM
| Comments (1)
| TrackBack
July 19, 2007
Jon Bon Jovi Wants Mijovi Brand Name Dead, Not Alive
Jon Bon Jovi is not happy at all about a new energy drink called Mijovi, a name that the drink's creator claims was inspired not by the famous rocker but by his girlfriend, Jovita Saenz.
The company's marketing materials include other words such as "itsmijovi" and "itsmilife" which look like fairly clear references to Bon Jovi's song "It's My Life."
So far the US Trademark office is supporting Mijovi, and while there is a great deal of law out there that protects trademarks that are considered famous, the argument that Bon Jovi sells songs and Mijovi is a drink in the log run will probably not hold, er, water.
People building piggyback brand names from famous stars is a daily headache for product naming experts.
Companies that attempt to trade off of someone else's equity, either a famous person's or famous brand, are low-life parasites.
I am sure that if she decides to pursue it, for instance, Gwen Stefani's suit against retail chain Forever 21, which seems to be marketing and promoting products that are the same as her Harajuku Lovers fashion brand name, will be successful.
Forever 21 has even gone so far as to copy the Harajuku Lovers logo and brand name by changing the word "Harajuku" to "Forever" and the word "Lovers" to "Love."
And Evel Knievel is jumping mad at Kanye West for ripping off his image and name in a video that features rapper "Evel Kanyevel" and a reenactment of Knievel's doomed attempt to jump the Snake River Canyon. Ouch.
In any event, energy drink naming is pretty crazy. Witness the advent of "Bloom," the new Del Monte Energy drink for women (one of the very few female orientated names out there, it seems, aside from Tab Energy and Go Girl Energy).
The newer Energy drink names look set to bring the meaning of the word "energy" closer to the word "hyper" (whoops, looks like there's already a drink called "Hype").
Technorati Tags: Mijovi, Jon Bon Jovi, Gwen Stefani, Harajuku Lovers, Evel Knievel, Kanye West, Bloom, TabEnergy, Wired Citrus Punch, Go Girl Energy, Hype.
Posted by William Lozito at 9:21 AM
| Comments (3)
| TrackBack
July 16, 2007
Naming Problems Still Haunt Google
Though apparently poised to take over the world, Google still has problems going global.
First there were problems with Gmail. Then there was China.
Never mind the censorship controversy; the Chinese couldn't pronounce "Google." So the company rebranded its search engine "Gu Ge," which the Chinese greeted with less than unanimous enthusiasm.
Now Beijing Guge Science and Technology Ltd. is suing Google for trademark infringement. They're tired of having people call them looking for Google, which somehow failed to get itself into the telephone directory under either "Google" or "Gu Ge."
Perhaps Google should take another look at the alternatives proposed in 2006 on www.noguge.com, like Gou Gou and Gou Le.
The noguge.com site has been taken down, but it's probably still in the Google cache somewhere.
Technorati Tags: Google, Beijing Guge Science and Technology Ltd., noguge.com, Gmail.
Posted by William Lozito at 9:28 AM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
June 25, 2007
iPop Goes the Weasel
New Zealand software company Orbitcoms has created a CRM (customer relationship management) tool which makes substantial use of pop-up windows. Their proposed name for the product? "iPop."
And Apple, naturally, has objected. It might not be possible to trademark that initial lower-case "i," but even so, anyone who uses it, particularly for software or electronics, is going to get slapped with an iLawsuit.
In this case, Apple might have some justification: there is only one letter’s difference between “iPop” and “iPod.” It’s highly unlikely anyone would ever confuse the two products, but it’s possible they would confuse the names, and expect something with the name “iPop” to be manufactured by Apple, Inc.
Apple may actually be doing Orbitcoms a favor. “iPop” is a frivolous name, and CRM is serious business. The name suggests consumer entertainment, not corporate productivity.
Using a different name would save Orbitcoms at least NZ$50,000 and probably resonate better with their target market.
But I don’t recommend they call the product “PopI.”
Technorati Tags: Orbitcoms, Apple, iPod, iPop, CRM
Posted by William Lozito at 1:17 PM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
June 14, 2007
Product Names Backwards and Forwards
A palindrome is a word, phrase, or sentence which reads the same backwards and forwards. Most English speakers are familiar with the palindromes "Madam, I'm Adam" and "A man, a plan, a canal: Panama."
Wikipedia has an interesting list of palindromic place-names, but most of those names seem to be natural palindromes, not names which were made up or chosen because you could read them in either direction.
One examining attorney in a trademark application case argued that palindromes make stronger marks, and the fact that two similar names were both palindromes increased the likelihood of confusion between them, but John L. Welch of the TTAB Blog isn't buying it.
The two names in question, Niccin and Nicocin, are indeed both palindromes, but, as with anagrams, you have to be looking for a palindrome in order to notice it.
Nicocin isn't the only palindrome in the trademark register. There's the Rotavator, the Honda Civic, the Intel Viiv, and the drug Xanax, among others.
But if palindromes really made such great brand names, you'd expect to find more of them, particularly among coined names.
Natural palindromes are fairly rare in English; if they were more common, they'd be less interesting.
The name "Palindrome," on the other hand, seems to be quite popular. Fourteen companies have applied to trademark the term "Palindrome," but the only currently registered Palindrome marks are for clothing and for computer consulting.
Technorati Tags: