Brand naming: methods and criteria for choosing a name
Why brand naming is not just a word, but part of verbal identity
Brand names are often developed in isolation from the rest — first they come up with a word, and then they stretch a slogan, communication tone, and text on packaging to fit it. This works backwards. Naming is the upper level of verbal identity, and it sets the rules of the game for everything the brand says next: how the slogan sounds, what tone is allowed in social networks, which words can be used in product descriptions, and which would contradict the root of the name.
If the name is built on seriousness and accuracy (typical for B2B), but the communication tone is then made playful and ironic — a dissonance arises that is perceived by the audience at a subconscious level, even if no one formulates the complaint in words. Therefore, in professional naming development, naming is never evaluated in isolation — it is always checked for compatibility with the future communication strategy, not just whether it 'sounds nice'.
How names are actually evaluated: three levels, not a list of criteria
Most articles list naming criteria in parallel — pleasantness, memorability, uniqueness, scalability — and suggest checking each option against this list. The problem is that the criteria are not equivalent and do not work in parallel, but hierarchically, at three levels. A weakness at the lower level is not critical if the upper one is strong. But a failure at the upper level cannot be compensated for by strength at the lower levels.
| Level | What is checked | What happens when it fails |
|---|---|---|
| Strategic | Does the name help the positioning task, does it correspond to the brand's promise | The name is pleasant, but the brand does not stand out and does not build the necessary perception — critical, cannot be fixed with design |
| Linguistic | Pronunciation, ease of memorization, absence of unfortunate associations in other languages | The name is difficult to pronounce or remember — reach is lost, but the strategy is alive |
| Practical | Does the name work on real carriers: signboard, domain, social networks, packaging, search | The name is physically inconvenient to use — inflated logo, occupied domain, confusion in search |
In practice, agencies (including players such as LAVMI) generate 200-300 variants at the draft stage, from the creative stage 100 to 1000 ideas emerge, but only 10-15 make it to the final presentation to the client. This is not random filtering — each filtering occurs precisely at the levels: first they cut by strategy, then by language, and only then by practical use.
What to do if the name has both pros and cons at the same time
This is the most common situation, and it is exactly here that most team discussions break down. The name sounds good, but it is narrowly tied to the product — for example, «Pirogovskaya Ulitsa» works perfectly for one point with pies, but hinders if the brand wants to sell cakes or open a café. Or the name is easy to remember, but pulls along incorrect associations — a sharp, «masculine» sound for a brand aiming at a premium women's segment.
The rule is simple: first, they look at the level of the problem. If the flaw relates to the strategic level — narrow category, incorrect associations with positioning — this is critical, and beautiful sound does not save it. If the flaw is purely linguistic or practical — for example, the domain is occupied, but can be easily resolved with a subdomain or alternative spelling — this is a working compromise, not a reason for rejection.
The mistake of most teams is to evaluate a name emotionally, entirely, based on a single impression of 'liking' or 'disliking'. Emotional evaluation is deceptive precisely because it does not distinguish levels: strong linguistic charm can mask strategic emptiness, and conversely — a name that is accurate in meaning but awkward in sound seems 'bad', even though it solves the necessary task better than competitors.
On which mistakes do teams most often stumble
- Too short a name. It seems like a good solution — easy to remember, easy to pronounce. But short words of 3-4 letters are almost always already taken as domains, trademarks, or mentions in social networks, and registering short designations at Rospatent is often rejected due to lack of distinctive character.
- Geographical binding. A name like «Siberian honey» or «Ural sausages» works great locally, but becomes a problem when expanding to other regions or for export — a consumer outside the region either doesn't understand the reference or it works against the brand.
- Too descriptive a name. «Best coffee» or «Fast delivery» do not pass trademark registration precisely due to their descriptiveness — they are not protected by law because they describe a product feature, not identify a specific manufacturer. At the same time, a common word like «Table» or «Pencil» is perfectly registrable if applied in an unexpected product category for that word.
- Reference to state symbolism. A name that clearly coincides with the phrase «Russian Federation» — for example, «RF-Consult» — will not pass registration, even if the abbreviation is shortened and formally does not fully match.
- Confusion between the company name and the trademark. These are different legal entities that often do not coincide. OOO «Dandelion» is a corporate name, it is automatically fixed upon registration of a legal entity and only protects the company within its field of activity. And «Chamomile» as a brand under which the product is sold is a commercial designation that must be separately registered as a trademark at Rospatent. Registration is valid for 10 years, a trademark can be transferred via franchising — this is not allowed for a corporate name.
How to properly test a name with an audience
The 'like or dislike' poll is the most useless way to test, because it measures the taste of specific focus group participants, not the actual behavior of the target audience. People's first impression of a new word is almost always neutral — the brain does not have time to form an opinion within a few seconds of viewing a list of options, and the 'like' response often reflects a coincidental similarity to something familiar, rather than an assessment of how suitable the name is for a brand.
Real differences between variants and working criteria for selection emerge not in a quick scale assessment, but in a deep conversation. Studies on B2B-brands show: when a respondent is asked not to evaluate, but to explain — what the name says about the company, who it would suit, what it associates with after a week of use — nuances emerge that cannot be caught with a closed question.
What to ask instead of 'like / dislike':
- What do you expect from a company with such a name, if you know nothing about it?
- Who, in your opinion, would suit this name — to which product, which price category?
- Is it easy for you to pronounce this name to another person over the phone, without a hint?
- What does the name associate with — even if the association seems strange or unrelated?
- What will you remember from the name after a week, if you don't see it again?
How to choose the final variant when several names are equal in strength
Usually, 3-5 variants reach the final selection, which have passed basic filters and seem equally successful to the team. Here, a 'likes more' argument leads to a deadlock — a scoring matrix is needed, where each variant gets points based on a fixed set of criteria with different weights, depending on the level. Strategic criteria get the highest weight, linguistic ones — medium, practical ones — the lowest, but it is precisely these that often become the deciding factor when the rest are equal.
The approach varies by brand type. For the premium segment, weight is given to the uniqueness of the sound and the absence of direct associations with the mass market — here, simplicity of pronunciation can be sacrificed for the feeling of exclusivity. For mass market, ease of memorization and unambiguous pronunciation at first contact are more critical — a complex name filters out part of the audience before they even get a chance to learn about the product. In B2B, strategic weight shifts toward seriousness and professional sound, where emotional brightness is less important than in B2C, where the name should trigger a quick emotional response from the end consumer.
If after a weighted matrix two options still score the same points — the decision is not made by team voting, but by practical-level verification: which of the two is truly free as a domain, as a trademark, as an account in social networks. In this case, practice becomes that very 'arbitral judge' that artificially removes equality through a reality constraint.
Legal verification: what has changed and what needs to be known in advance
Verification through Rospatent — a mandatory step, but its logic is often misunderstood. Applications for registration are not rejected for any ordinary words, but for words that describe the product or service property itself — 'Best Coffee', 'Fast Delivery' are not protected precisely for this reason, as a competitor cannot be deprived of the right to call their coffee good. Meanwhile, ordinary everyday words — 'Table', 'Pencil' — are successfully registered if used in an unexpected product category, where the distinctive capability is preserved.
From 1 March 2026 year, a law on the priority of the Russian language has been in effect, which directly affects naming of international and local brands using the Latin alphabet. Latin spelling of the name now requires a Russian dub, and the Russian text must be visually no less prominent than the Latin one — this changes the approach to signage, packaging, and digital media design for brands that originally built their identity around an English name.
And a separate point that people often confuse at the start of business: the legal name of a legal entity and a trademark are different things. LLC «Dandelion» protects the company as a legal entity, but does not grant rights to the brand «Chamomile», under which this company sells its product. A trademark is registered separately, is valid for 10 years with the possibility of renewal, and it is this — not the entry in the EGRUL — that gives the right to sell a franchise or protect the name from copying by competitors.
Why brand naming is not just a word, but part of verbal identity
Brand names are often developed in isolation from the rest — first they come up with a word, and then they stretch a slogan, communication tone, and text on packaging to fit it. This works backwards. Naming is the upper level of verbal identity, and it sets the rules of the game for everything the brand says next: how the slogan sounds, what tone is allowed in social networks, which words can be used in product descriptions, and which would contradict the root of the name.
If the name is built on seriousness and accuracy (typical for B2B), but the communication tone is then made playful and ironic — a dissonance arises that is perceived by the audience at a subconscious level, even if no one formulates the complaint in words. Therefore, in professional naming development, naming is never evaluated in isolation — it is always checked for compatibility with the future communication strategy, not just whether it 'sounds nice'.
How names are actually evaluated: three levels, not a list of criteria
Most articles list naming criteria in parallel — pleasantness, memorability, uniqueness, scalability — and suggest checking each option against this list. The problem is that the criteria are not equivalent and do not work in parallel, but hierarchically, at three levels. A weakness at the lower level is not critical if the upper one is strong. But a failure at the upper level cannot be compensated for by strength at the lower levels.
| Level | What is checked | What happens when it fails |
|---|---|---|
| Strategic | Does the name help the positioning task, does it correspond to the brand's promise | The name is pleasant, but the brand does not stand out and does not build the necessary perception — critical, cannot be fixed with design |
| Linguistic | Pronunciation, ease of memorization, absence of unfortunate associations in other languages | The name is difficult to pronounce or remember — reach is lost, but the strategy is alive |
| Practical | Does the name work on real carriers: signboard, domain, social networks, packaging, search | The name is physically inconvenient to use — inflated logo, occupied domain, confusion in search |
In practice, agencies (including players such as LAVMI) generate 200-300 variants at the draft stage, from the creative stage 100 to 1000 ideas emerge, but only 10-15 make it to the final presentation to the client. This is not random filtering — each filtering occurs precisely at the levels: first they cut by strategy, then by language, and only then by practical use.
What to do if the name has both pros and cons at the same time
This is the most common situation, and it is exactly here that most team discussions break down. The name sounds good, but it is narrowly tied to the product — for example, «Pirogovskaya Ulitsa» works perfectly for one point with pies, but hinders if the brand wants to sell cakes or open a café. Or the name is easy to remember, but pulls along incorrect associations — a sharp, «masculine» sound for a brand aiming at a premium women's segment.
The rule is simple: first, they look at the level of the problem. If the flaw relates to the strategic level — narrow category, incorrect associations with positioning — this is critical, and beautiful sound does not save it. If the flaw is purely linguistic or practical — for example, the domain is occupied, but can be easily resolved with a subdomain or alternative spelling — this is a working compromise, not a reason for rejection.
The mistake of most teams is to evaluate a name emotionally, entirely, based on a single impression of 'liking' or 'disliking'. Emotional evaluation is deceptive precisely because it does not distinguish levels: strong linguistic charm can mask strategic emptiness, and conversely — a name that is accurate in meaning but awkward in sound seems 'bad', even though it solves the necessary task better than competitors.
On which mistakes do teams most often stumble
- Too short a name. It seems like a good solution — easy to remember, easy to pronounce. But short words of 3-4 letters are almost always already taken as domains, trademarks, or mentions in social networks, and registering short designations at Rospatent is often rejected due to lack of distinctive character.
- Geographical binding. A name like «Siberian honey» or «Ural sausages» works great locally, but becomes a problem when expanding to other regions or for export — a consumer outside the region either doesn't understand the reference or it works against the brand.
- Too descriptive a name. «Best coffee» or «Fast delivery» do not pass trademark registration precisely due to their descriptiveness — they are not protected by law because they describe a product feature, not identify a specific manufacturer. At the same time, a common word like «Table» or «Pencil» is perfectly registrable if applied in an unexpected product category for that word.
- Reference to state symbolism. A name that clearly coincides with the phrase «Russian Federation» — for example, «RF-Consult» — will not pass registration, even if the abbreviation is shortened and formally does not fully match.
- Confusion between the company name and the trademark. These are different legal entities that often do not coincide. OOO «Dandelion» is a corporate name, it is automatically fixed upon registration of a legal entity and only protects the company within its field of activity. And «Chamomile» as a brand under which the product is sold is a commercial designation that must be separately registered as a trademark at Rospatent. Registration is valid for 10 years, a trademark can be transferred via franchising — this is not allowed for a corporate name.
How to properly test a name with an audience
The 'like or dislike' poll is the most useless way to test, because it measures the taste of specific focus group participants, not the actual behavior of the target audience. People's first impression of a new word is almost always neutral — the brain does not have time to form an opinion within a few seconds of viewing a list of options, and the 'like' response often reflects a coincidental similarity to something familiar, rather than an assessment of how suitable the name is for a brand.
Real differences between variants and working criteria for selection emerge not in a quick scale assessment, but in a deep conversation. Studies on B2B-brands show: when a respondent is asked not to evaluate, but to explain — what the name says about the company, who it would suit, what it associates with after a week of use — nuances emerge that cannot be caught with a closed question.
What to ask instead of 'like / dislike':
- What do you expect from a company with such a name, if you know nothing about it?
- Who, in your opinion, would suit this name — to which product, which price category?
- Is it easy for you to pronounce this name to another person over the phone, without a hint?
- What does the name associate with — even if the association seems strange or unrelated?
- What will you remember from the name after a week, if you don't see it again?
How to choose the final variant when several names are equal in strength
Usually, 3-5 variants reach the final selection, which have passed basic filters and seem equally successful to the team. Here, a 'likes more' argument leads to a deadlock — a scoring matrix is needed, where each variant gets points based on a fixed set of criteria with different weights, depending on the level. Strategic criteria get the highest weight, linguistic ones — medium, practical ones — the lowest, but it is precisely these that often become the deciding factor when the rest are equal.
The approach varies by brand type. For the premium segment, weight is given to the uniqueness of the sound and the absence of direct associations with the mass market — here, simplicity of pronunciation can be sacrificed for the feeling of exclusivity. For mass market, ease of memorization and unambiguous pronunciation at first contact are more critical — a complex name filters out part of the audience before they even get a chance to learn about the product. In B2B, strategic weight shifts toward seriousness and professional sound, where emotional brightness is less important than in B2C, where the name should trigger a quick emotional response from the end consumer.
If after a weighted matrix two options still score the same points — the decision is not made by team voting, but by practical-level verification: which of the two is truly free as a domain, as a trademark, as an account in social networks. In this case, practice becomes that very 'arbitral judge' that artificially removes equality through a reality constraint.
Legal verification: what has changed and what needs to be known in advance
Verification through Rospatent — a mandatory step, but its logic is often misunderstood. Applications for registration are not rejected for any ordinary words, but for words that describe the product or service property itself — 'Best Coffee', 'Fast Delivery' are not protected precisely for this reason, as a competitor cannot be deprived of the right to call their coffee good. Meanwhile, ordinary everyday words — 'Table', 'Pencil' — are successfully registered if used in an unexpected product category, where the distinctive capability is preserved.
From 1 March 2026 year, a law on the priority of the Russian language has been in effect, which directly affects naming of international and local brands using the Latin alphabet. Latin spelling of the name now requires a Russian dub, and the Russian text must be visually no less prominent than the Latin one — this changes the approach to signage, packaging, and digital media design for brands that originally built their identity around an English name.
And a separate point that people often confuse at the start of business: the legal name of a legal entity and a trademark are different things. LLC «Dandelion» protects the company as a legal entity, but does not grant rights to the brand «Chamomile», under which this company sells its product. A trademark is registered separately, is valid for 10 years with the possibility of renewal, and it is this — not the entry in the EGRUL — that gives the right to sell a franchise or protect the name from copying by competitors.
Recent articles
MegaFon, BMW, VTB and more 240+ companies. See how it looks in the showcase reel:
Our branding agency is approached to order:
Branding agency services
