June 12, 2009
Facebook URLs: Your Brand Name May Be Going Fast!
At 12:01 AM EST this Saturday the great race to secure your Facebook URL is on and the stakes are high.
This will allow people to transpose their real names onto their Facebook URL, allowing you to swap "www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=123456789" with "www.facebook.com/John.Doe," for example.
This new ID will make your page more Google friendly, making you easier to track by creating better organic search results, more visibility and ultimately, better brand recall.
The Personal Branding blog flatly says that this is a "requirement" for personal branding. And maybe it should be, especially when one takes into account the potential trademark issues.
The Legal Technology Insider is a little worried about this, however:
According to Joanne Bone, head of Intellectual Property & Information Technology at Irwin Mitchell: "Due to the user generated nature of Facebook, allowing your trademark to be used by others could present a range of costly problems ranging from trademark infringement to defamation. While this can be seen as a unique opportunity, it may well present some very serious problems for trademark owners. You do not want to find that your brand has been 'hijacked' by someone with no connection to you and put at the end of one of the personal URLs.
Trademark owners only have until Saturday, June 13, to submit a form protecting their registered trademark.
This seems like a no-brainer if you have a trademark to protect, and if your brand is not registered, I suggest you burn the midnight oil this weekend and snag the name before somebody else does. The catch is that if you are not already on Facebook you'll have to log on with somebody else's details to protect your brand name.
At least one analyst says that while protecting your name on Facebook is a good idea, you need to "control the flow" as far as social media is concerned. This means focusing more on your own URL and not placing too much emphasis on social networks like Facebook and Twitter.
He really does make a good point. Far too few companies have their own brand name as their URL, which should be made more of a priority if search results drive a significant portion of their business.
Still, I'd hate to see my brand name, or my personal name, get into a competitor's hands.
Technorati Tags: Facebook, Facebook URL, Facebook Domain Name, Company URL, Company Domain Name
Posted by William Lozito at 8:45 AM| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
June 8, 2009
Amarok Ute: Will VW's New Vehicle Name Make it to the Streets in the U.S.?
The new Amarok "ute" naming coming out of Volkswagon both intrigues and puzzles me.
Ute, by the way, is short for "utility vehicle."
This particular vehicle is kind of a hybrid pick-up truck and is set to be sold everywhere in the world except the U.S.
However, VW has registered the trademark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, leading some to suspect that we may see the "ute" on streets close to home pretty soon.
The irony in the name is that Amarok means "wolf" in the Inuit language, and since the Inuit are Native Americans who hail from the upper 48, Alaska and Canada, they will not be able to drive one, because the Amarok will probably not be sold in these places, at least right away.
One VW CEO said, "This name fits to a tee the characteristics of our utility, which will set new standards in its class. We took great care selecting this name, which can be used globally. The Amarok is meant to invoke positive associations in all relevant international markets and make a more convincing argument than its established competitor's right from the start."
VW calls the division that makes these vehicles in Germany "Nutzfahrzeuge," meaning "use vehicles" and thus the "ute," or "utility," moniker that may or may not be useful to the product naming.
This moves the naming scheme for VW even further away from the Golfs, Sciroccos, and Corrados of years past and toward a much more esoteric naming nomenclature.
Their Toureg is named after a nomadic tribe in the Sahara (where you can't buy VWs, nomads generally walk anyway) and their Tiguan is an amalgamation of "Tiger and Lizard" that was put in place thanks in part to the enthusiasm of AutoBahn readers, but quickly was named one of the 10 worst car names ever by at least one blogger.
Nonetheless, VW had better be very careful about referring to their new vehicle as a "ute" if they do come to our shores, not least because another North American tribe, called the Ute Tribe, tend to be very protective of their name, as the University of Utah found out when they tried to name their sports team the "Running Utes."
Technorati Tags: Amarok, VW ute, VW Naming, SUV Naming, Automotive Naming
Posted by William Lozito at 11:01 AM| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
June 2, 2009
The Idaho Fry Company Learns the Hard Way About Potato Company Naming and Branding
The Idaho Fry Company has learned the hard way about trademark regulations as they pertain to company naming and branding.
This new company, which wants to "elevate the status of the french fry," received a short note from the Idaho Potato Commission (IPC), two months before they were set to open, curtly informing them that there was "a problem" with their company naming.
The problem, of course, is that they cannot use the word "Idaho" on anything related to potatoes, including the words "free, fresh, frozen or dehydrated."
Even though the IPC does not seem to technically possess limitation for the word "fries," the commission refuses to back down. The Idaho Fry Company's sign, business cards and web site all have to be recreated and the company cannot simply change the name to "Boise" because that's also protected.
It seems the owners of the company actually did check with some intellectual property attorneys before opening shop and they believed they had a decent case for obtaining rights to the name, but they simply do not have the money to fight the mighty Idaho Potato Commission.
The Boise Weekly blog asks "Aren't enough local businesses struggling these days without nitpicking from the head potato heads?"
It took me only a few minutes to read about the aggressive way in which the IPC protects the word "Idaho" via both certification marks and trademarks. They license "Idaho" to potato growers, shippers, packers and processors, and have a clear record of protecting their mark.
It's a vigorously protected name on a local and global scale, which makes sense since "Idaho potatoes have the greatest name recognition and production preference among consumers."
So considering that the name "Idaho Potato" has the most equity worldwide in the multi-billion dollar potato business, one would think that the Idaho Fry Company had to know there'd be a fight over their company name. Just because you open a shop in Idaho does not give you the right to use the mark.
Idaho Potatoes are to spuds as Microsoft is to computers. They simply are not going to budge if you try to say you're not selling potatoes, you're selling fries.
However, the place looks like they offer some great food, but whoever told them it would be OK to use the word Idaho in their company naming and branding really isn't worth much more than a rotten potato.
Technorati Tags: Idaho Fry Company, Idaho Potatoes, Idaho Naming, Idaho Brand Names, Company Renaming
Posted by William Lozito at 10:31 AM| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
April 30, 2009
Krispy Kreme's Use of Vo-Vo Naming not Fair Dinkum Down Under
For some reason the countries down under and North America seem to be at quarreling over branding and naming this week.
First there was the Eskimo Pie issue between Canada and New Zealand, and now Australia is upset with U.S. donut giant Krispy Kreme.
An Australian company called Arnott's has cried foul over Krispy Kreme's use of the trademarked "Vo-Vo" biscuit (cookie) name, which was originally registered in 1906. One variant of the Vo-Vo line is the Iced Vo-Vo, which is apparently an "iconic" piece of "Australian culinary heritage."
Krispy Kreme has meanwhile released the "Iced Dough-Vo" doughnut as part of its Australian inspired "Fair Dinkum" doughnut line (this is an Australian expression which means "fair enough" or "truly fair"). Arnott claims that its product, the Iced Vo-Vo, and Krispy Kreme's product, the Iced Dough-Vo, sound much too similar for it to be a simple coincidence.
The Australian head of Krispy Kreme attempted to justify Krispy Kreme's naming rights in a statement that is best reprinted in its entirety: "The word 'iced' is pretty well used, and the word 'dough' I don't think has got anything to do with what Arnott's do, and the word 'vo', I'm not sure what it means, but it goes well with 'dough.'"
Um, well, not really. The beloved Vo-Vo has legions of supporters in the blogosphere, from the one who has declared "No-No Not The Vo-Vo" to another Aussie who says he wanted to name his first born "Iced Vo-Vo."
Krispy Kreme Australia claims that these items are a "tribute" to the real thing. Tribute or not, a trademark is a trademark and one man's tribute is another man's infringement, which does not go a long way in conveying the"sincerest form of flattery."
However, this disagreement seems to be coming to the appropriate end, as a truce has been declared and the name is being removed from Kispy Kreme products.
Australia can expect a new name on May 11. Now that's Fair Dinkum, if you ask me.
Technorati Tags: Doughnut Naming, Iced Vo-Vo, Iced Dough-Vo, Krispy Kreme, Arnott, Fair Dinkum
Posted by William Lozito at 8:09 AM| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
April 17, 2009
Is the World Ready for Octomom Brand Naming?
There are some moments in the naming and branding business that are quite inspirational. There are others that are amusing. And then there are those that makes us roll our eyes.
The news that Octomom, aka Nadya Suleman, has trademarked her celebrity name in order to create a product line and documentary is one of those eye rolling moments.
I must admit that she is wise to do so, of course, because there is probably equity in her name that will forever be associated with prodigious (and prodigal) stupidity, cupidity and selfishness.
However, the Octomom brand name probably has a fair chance of selling diapers and baby clothes to those looking for novelty or people who have twins, triplets, etc.
The documentary, which will follow her kids until they are eighteen, will probably also find a viewership, but one has to wonder wether we will get to watch for eighteen years or will have to wait eighteen years to see how things turn out for this unusual family?
The problem (and here is the real hair puller) is that the name has already been spoken for by a video game company. Mobile developer Super Happy Fun Fun (a company name that is another eyebrow raiser) has an OctoMom game for iPhone that is currently called "Fertile Myrtle," which has been described as "much classier," whatever that means.
So its Octomom vs OctoMom and Fertile Myrtle, is it?
TGIF.
Technorati Tags: Octomom, Brand Names, Brand Naming, Fertile Myrtle, Nadya Suleman
Posted by William Lozito at 8:27 AM| Comments (1)
| TrackBack
March 26, 2009
Cloud Computing: The Brand Naming MacGuffin for 2009
It seems that I am not the only person fed up with the term cloud computing.
This term, which the Wall Street Journal, among others, struggles to define, may become one of those annoying trend labels, like Cyberspace and Web 2.0, that the tech industry will look back upon with some embarrassment.
Never mind that Sun Microsystems has "Sun Cloud," that Apple has the "MobileMe" offering that features a cloud, or that Dell applied for a trademark for the word. And forget about the fact that Cloud.com is set to be one of the big ticket auction items at the Cloud Computing Expo and that open source leader Canonical is getting into cloud computing ("open source" is another term that may already be meaningless).
There is just way too much confusion over what cloud computing actually means even among supporters of the trend.
As ZD Net points out, the term is getting more meaningless by the moment. It has been overused and has become so "splintered" and hard to define that it's quickly becoming a term that identifies geeky tech head wannabees who want to see the industry experience a "paradigm shift" to "Web 3.0."
Names like "pop" and "indie" have become meaningless through overuse as applied to real products and services. "Thought leadership" is now passe. But Cloud Computing is one of those terms that never really stood for anything to begin with, and because of it, is slowly imploding on the naming and branding launch pad.
Will the name Cloud Computing ever truly take off?
Only if someone takes hold of the name and turns it into a concept that is easy to understand.
Right now it's the tech world's MacGuffin. Like the briefcase in Pulp Fiction, it is a thing that is desired for no other reason than it is something to desired. Or, as Hitchcock once said, "a MacGuffin is nothing at all."
Technorati Tags: Cloud Computing, MobileMe, Sun Cloud, Dell, Canonical, Cloud Computing Expo, Web 3.0, Product Names
Posted by William Lozito at 8:07 AM| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
February 19, 2009
Pull My Finger: Trademark Naming Infringement Stinks
The producers of a farting iPhone app are making a stink over the trademarking of the phrase "pull my finger."
I'm not pulling your leg.
Air-O-Matic, the maker of the "Pull My Finger" farting app for the iPhone, claims that iFart Mobile has appropriated the phrase "pull my finger" in its ads. However, iFart says the phrase "pull my finger" is "generally known" and "widely understood in American society to be a joke or prank regarding flatulence."
And thus begins the battle for what Discover Magazine calls "the lowest common tech denominator."
iFart offers a "stealth" feature that allows you to time the farts well in advance, or to make the phone fart when moved. It even has fart sounds named "Jack the Ripper" and "Brown Mosquito."
I have done some interesting naming jobs in my life, but naming different kinds of flatulence is not something I have yet considered. There's real imagination in matching a fart sound to the sound Bigfoot makes when he's feeling windy.
This is nothing new, of course. There are dozens of fart apps for the iPhone, at least 75 of them, but these two are really gassing it up.
Air-O-Matic wants $50,000 from iFart and has a video that explains their side of the story.
But as MacBlogz says, this whole thing is just "taking the fun out of flatulence."
Technorati Tags: iFart, iPhone, iPhone Apps, iPhone Naming, Trademarking, Trademark Infringement, Air-O-Matic, Apple iPhone
Posted by William Lozito at 8:03 AM| Comments (0)
| TrackBack