Typical mistakes when choosing a brand name
A legal mistake and a strategic mistake are not the same thing
Most articles on naming focus on Rospatent: don’t use descriptive words, check the trademark database, avoid spelling mistakes. This is true, but it’s only half the picture. The other half is strategic: a name may pass registration without a single objection and still be a poor choice, because it doesn’t allow the company to grow.
| Type of error | What happens | When it manifests |
|---|---|---|
| Legal | Refusal of registration, conflict with an existing mark, a claim from a trademark owner | At the application submission stage, 3-12 months |
| Linguistic | Unfavorable association in another language, difficulty in pronunciation | When entering a new market, often through 3-5 years |
| Strategic | The name limits the product or geography, doesn’t allow expansion | When scaling the business, through 2-7 years |
Statistics for the first type of errors reflect the reality of a poorly designed process: A large portion of applicants encounter obstacles on the path to registration. According to Rospatent data, in different years the share of refusals amounted from 25% to 30%. The specific figures for the percentage of applications reaching examination and successfully registered vary depending on the period and criteria for calculation. Refusals are most often made for three reasons: conflict with existing marks, lack of distinctive character, and violation of the rights of third parties.
Why descriptive names are not registered
"Fast delivery" or "Fresh bread" seem like logical names—they immediately explain what the company does. That is exactly why they cannot be protected: the law is based on the premise that descriptive terms must remain available to all market participants, not be monopolized by a single company. Descriptiveness is one of the most frequent reasons for refusal to register trademarks. This is a preventable mistake, as the criteria for descriptiveness are enshrined in legislation.
To understand how a strong name differs from a weak one, it is useful to look at the spectrum of legal protection strength—from completely unprotected designations to the strongest possible protection.
| Type of name | Example | Protection |
|---|---|---|
| Generic | "Bread", "Delivery" | Not protected at all |
| Descriptive | "Fast delivery", "Fresh bread" | Practically not protected |
| Praiseworthy | "Best", "Ideal" | Not protected |
| Arbitrary | Apple (for technology), Amazon (for marketplace) | Strong protection |
| Fantasy | Kodak, Xerox, Yandex | Maximum protection |
From this practical conclusion: if a name directly explains the product, this is a warning sign, not a successful find. A strong name works through association, not through direct description.
And what about non-standard spelling?
The reception of something like «Tea House №1» instead of «tea house» works because the deviation from the norm is based on a meaningful stylistic move — the number reinforces the claim to leadership, and the altered word is easily readable and memorable. But if the name came about due to a mundane typo — «hazhayeva» instead of «khozyaeva» — this is not a distinctive technique but an error, and a Rospatent expert will interpret it exactly that way. The difference between a find and a defect lies in the presence of a meaningful intention that can be explained in one sentence.
The order of checks: what to do first and what second
One of the most frequent practical errors is checking criteria in the wrong order. The team first falls in love with the name, registers the domain, orders the design — and only then goes on to check the trademark. The correct sequence is the reverse: first, legal risks are filtered out, then linguistic ones, and only then — visual and communicative.
- Checking for descriptiveness and distinctive capability — filters out 20-25% of options even at the draft stage, without any costs.
- Checking against trademark databases in target Nice classes and jurisdictions — including adjacent classes, not only the main one.
- Checking domain availability in the .ru zone and international zones, if expansion is planned — a occupied second-level domain is often a more solvable problem than an occupied trademark.
- Linguistic check on the languages of all markets where the company plans to enter within the 5-7 year horizon, including slang and phonetic similarities.
- Checking pronunciation and spelling by language speakers — an oral test on a group of people unfamiliar with the brand in advance.
- Only after completing the first five steps — filing the application for registration.
Violating this order is the main reason why companies spend money on design and marketing, and then discover trademark conflicts post factum.
Name and growth plans: a typical scaling trap
The company chooses a name for the current product and market — and this is reasonable only until the business begins to expand. Here it is important to distinguish between two approaches: a narrow name tied to a product or geography, and an open name that leaves room for growth.
| Approach | Plus at the start | Risk when scaling |
|---|---|---|
| Narrow name («Moscow Pelmeni») | Clear and specific from day one | Hinders expansion beyond the city or product range |
| Open name (fantasy or arbitrary word) | Requires more explanation at the beginning | Practically does not limit future development |
Cultural associations constitute a separate zone of risk when entering new markets, and this is exactly what is most often ignored at the start. Chevrolet Nova in Latin America encountered the issue that the name was perceived as 'no va' — 'does not go' — which for a car sounds like mockery. Burger King in Australia has been operating under the name Hungry Jack's for over 20 years — simply because the local trademark was already taken prior to the chain's entry into the market, and the legal route proved more expensive than operating under a different name. The conclusion is simple: if expansion is even considered a possibility, linguistic and legal checks must be conducted immediately across all target languages and jurisdictions, not on a market-by-market basis.
Why 'committee' decisions lead to generic names
When a large group chooses a name — the board of directors, the general meeting of employees, voting in a messenger — the result is almost always skewed toward a safe but unremarkable option. This is not coincidence, but the mechanics of group decision-making: a vivid and risky name always attracts a portion of 'no' votes, while a neutral and slightly descriptive one attracts the fewest objections. In the end, the winner is not the strongest option, but the one that least offends anyone.
A common observation in marketing literature: committee voting often leans toward letters perceived as reliable (C, A, P, S), although this requires additional verification. A similar logic pushes groups toward acronyms — they seem like a neutral compromise. However, acronyms like IBM or HP only work due to decades of investment in brand recognition; without such a budget, a new acronym tells nothing to the consumer and gets lost in the noise. A working alternative is to narrow the decision-making circle to 2-3 people with clear evaluation criteria (legal clarity, pronounceability, scalability potential) and test finalists on an external audience, not within the company.
How much does a naming mistake cost
The cost of a failed naming becomes evident not immediately, but when the company decides to fix the situation. A full rebranding costs from 500 000 to 5 000 000+ rubles for medium-sized businesses, and for large players, the figure is several orders of magnitude higher.
- Sberbank spent approximately 2,5 billion rubles on rebranding in 2019 year, including changing the name to 'Sber'.
- Pepsi invested 1,2 billion dollars in a logo redesign and accompanying marketing campaign in 2009 year — however, most consumers did not notice any changes at all, meaning the money did not pay off through increased brand recognition.
- Burger King in Australia incurs ongoing rather than one-time costs — double branding, a separate marketing line for Hungry Jack’s, confusion among tourists — for more than 20 years.
These figures show the main point: saving on legal and linguistic verification at the stage of choosing a name is a deferred, not canceled, expense. The difference is only that rebranding costs dozens of times more than preliminary verification and requires halting already running marketing processes, rather than building them from scratch.
A legal mistake and a strategic mistake are not the same thing
Most articles on naming focus on Rospatent: don’t use descriptive words, check the trademark database, avoid spelling mistakes. This is true, but it’s only half the picture. The other half is strategic: a name may pass registration without a single objection and still be a poor choice, because it doesn’t allow the company to grow.
| Type of error | What happens | When it manifests |
|---|---|---|
| Legal | Refusal of registration, conflict with an existing mark, a claim from a trademark owner | At the application submission stage, 3-12 months |
| Linguistic | Unfavorable association in another language, difficulty in pronunciation | When entering a new market, often through 3-5 years |
| Strategic | The name limits the product or geography, doesn’t allow expansion | When scaling the business, through 2-7 years |
Statistics for the first type of errors reflect the reality of a poorly designed process: A large portion of applicants encounter obstacles on the path to registration. According to Rospatent data, in different years the share of refusals amounted from 25% to 30%. The specific figures for the percentage of applications reaching examination and successfully registered vary depending on the period and criteria for calculation. Refusals are most often made for three reasons: conflict with existing marks, lack of distinctive character, and violation of the rights of third parties.
Why descriptive names are not registered
"Fast delivery" or "Fresh bread" seem like logical names—they immediately explain what the company does. That is exactly why they cannot be protected: the law is based on the premise that descriptive terms must remain available to all market participants, not be monopolized by a single company. Descriptiveness is one of the most frequent reasons for refusal to register trademarks. This is a preventable mistake, as the criteria for descriptiveness are enshrined in legislation.
To understand how a strong name differs from a weak one, it is useful to look at the spectrum of legal protection strength—from completely unprotected designations to the strongest possible protection.
| Type of name | Example | Protection |
|---|---|---|
| Generic | "Bread", "Delivery" | Not protected at all |
| Descriptive | "Fast delivery", "Fresh bread" | Practically not protected |
| Praiseworthy | "Best", "Ideal" | Not protected |
| Arbitrary | Apple (for technology), Amazon (for marketplace) | Strong protection |
| Fantasy | Kodak, Xerox, Yandex | Maximum protection |
From this practical conclusion: if a name directly explains the product, this is a warning sign, not a successful find. A strong name works through association, not through direct description.
And what about non-standard spelling?
The reception of something like «Tea House №1» instead of «tea house» works because the deviation from the norm is based on a meaningful stylistic move — the number reinforces the claim to leadership, and the altered word is easily readable and memorable. But if the name came about due to a mundane typo — «hazhayeva» instead of «khozyaeva» — this is not a distinctive technique but an error, and a Rospatent expert will interpret it exactly that way. The difference between a find and a defect lies in the presence of a meaningful intention that can be explained in one sentence.
The order of checks: what to do first and what second
One of the most frequent practical errors is checking criteria in the wrong order. The team first falls in love with the name, registers the domain, orders the design — and only then goes on to check the trademark. The correct sequence is the reverse: first, legal risks are filtered out, then linguistic ones, and only then — visual and communicative.
- Checking for descriptiveness and distinctive capability — filters out 20-25% of options even at the draft stage, without any costs.
- Checking against trademark databases in target Nice classes and jurisdictions — including adjacent classes, not only the main one.
- Checking domain availability in the .ru zone and international zones, if expansion is planned — a occupied second-level domain is often a more solvable problem than an occupied trademark.
- Linguistic check on the languages of all markets where the company plans to enter within the 5-7 year horizon, including slang and phonetic similarities.
- Checking pronunciation and spelling by language speakers — an oral test on a group of people unfamiliar with the brand in advance.
- Only after completing the first five steps — filing the application for registration.
Violating this order is the main reason why companies spend money on design and marketing, and then discover trademark conflicts post factum.
Name and growth plans: a typical scaling trap
The company chooses a name for the current product and market — and this is reasonable only until the business begins to expand. Here it is important to distinguish between two approaches: a narrow name tied to a product or geography, and an open name that leaves room for growth.
| Approach | Plus at the start | Risk when scaling |
|---|---|---|
| Narrow name («Moscow Pelmeni») | Clear and specific from day one | Hinders expansion beyond the city or product range |
| Open name (fantasy or arbitrary word) | Requires more explanation at the beginning | Practically does not limit future development |
Cultural associations constitute a separate zone of risk when entering new markets, and this is exactly what is most often ignored at the start. Chevrolet Nova in Latin America encountered the issue that the name was perceived as 'no va' — 'does not go' — which for a car sounds like mockery. Burger King in Australia has been operating under the name Hungry Jack's for over 20 years — simply because the local trademark was already taken prior to the chain's entry into the market, and the legal route proved more expensive than operating under a different name. The conclusion is simple: if expansion is even considered a possibility, linguistic and legal checks must be conducted immediately across all target languages and jurisdictions, not on a market-by-market basis.
Why 'committee' decisions lead to generic names
When a large group chooses a name — the board of directors, the general meeting of employees, voting in a messenger — the result is almost always skewed toward a safe but unremarkable option. This is not coincidence, but the mechanics of group decision-making: a vivid and risky name always attracts a portion of 'no' votes, while a neutral and slightly descriptive one attracts the fewest objections. In the end, the winner is not the strongest option, but the one that least offends anyone.
A common observation in marketing literature: committee voting often leans toward letters perceived as reliable (C, A, P, S), although this requires additional verification. A similar logic pushes groups toward acronyms — they seem like a neutral compromise. However, acronyms like IBM or HP only work due to decades of investment in brand recognition; without such a budget, a new acronym tells nothing to the consumer and gets lost in the noise. A working alternative is to narrow the decision-making circle to 2-3 people with clear evaluation criteria (legal clarity, pronounceability, scalability potential) and test finalists on an external audience, not within the company.
How much does a naming mistake cost
The cost of a failed naming becomes evident not immediately, but when the company decides to fix the situation. A full rebranding costs from 500 000 to 5 000 000+ rubles for medium-sized businesses, and for large players, the figure is several orders of magnitude higher.
- Sberbank spent approximately 2,5 billion rubles on rebranding in 2019 year, including changing the name to 'Sber'.
- Pepsi invested 1,2 billion dollars in a logo redesign and accompanying marketing campaign in 2009 year — however, most consumers did not notice any changes at all, meaning the money did not pay off through increased brand recognition.
- Burger King in Australia incurs ongoing rather than one-time costs — double branding, a separate marketing line for Hungry Jack’s, confusion among tourists — for more than 20 years.
These figures show the main point: saving on legal and linguistic verification at the stage of choosing a name is a deferred, not canceled, expense. The difference is only that rebranding costs dozens of times more than preliminary verification and requires halting already running marketing processes, rather than building them from scratch.
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
