Trademark guidelines make for unclear copy
In many big companies, intellectual property protection - trademarks and registered marks - drive product naming. I’ve worked on several projects in November that suffered from overwrought names. Some examples (not necessarily from my work):
- Intel® Centrino® Pro™ processor technology
- The 2007 Microsoft Office system
- Adobe® Acrobat® 8 Professional software
The problem is that there is little flexibility in the way writers can use these phrases. In some cases, a five-word name with three trademark bugs has to be used EVERY time the product is referenced. No abbreviation or variation is allowed at all. I suppose part of the challenge of my work is to deal with this and still turn out reasonable copy.
I’d love to hear from a IP lawyer about why this happens. Some companies seem to have wieldy product names and still protect their rights. MacBook, iPod, OS X or iPhone anyone?
(In fact Apple’s pith may explain an odd phenomenon. I have never understood why people call them “AppleMac”. Perhaps they need more words than Apple give them.)
I’m going to change my name. From now on, I want to be known as “the 2008 Matthew Stibbe Writing™ system Ultimate Edition® with Marketing Plus Technology®.”
Technorati Tags: Naming, writing, IP, trademarks, Apple
David Bradley wrote:
As far as I’m concerned, how I write trademarked names is down to housestyle. I certainly don’t include ® or ™ or use any formating unless the magazine or paper accepts that as part of its housestyle.
Legally, as long as it’s got a first capital letter the company cannot complain as that makes it a proper noun and that’s enough to avoid the fate of hoover, aspirin, and googling (although Google would beg to differ and is still defending it’s capital G and rightly so)
db
Posted on 06-Dec-07 at 10:42 am | Permalink
Christian » Trademark guidelines make for unclear copy wrote:
[...] Matthew Mehan wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptI’m going to change my name. From now on, I want to be known as “the 2008 Matthew Stibbe Writing™ system Ultimate Edition® with Marketing Plus Technology®.” Technorati Tags: Naming, writing, IP, trademarks, Apple. [...]
Posted on 06-Dec-07 at 10:42 am | Permalink
Apple Ipod, Ipod Nano and Ipod Video News » Trademark guidelines make for unclear copy wrote:
[...] unknown wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt In many big companies, intellectual property protection - trademarks and registered marks - drive product naming. I’ve worked on several projects in November that suffered from overwrought names. Some examples (not necessarily from my work): Intel® Centrino® Pro™ processor technology The 2007 Microsoft Office system Adobe® Acrobat® 8 Professional software The problem is that there is little flexibility in the way writers can use these phrases. In some cases, a five-word name with three tra [...]
Posted on 06-Dec-07 at 10:54 am | Permalink
John McGarvey wrote:
This is one of my pet hates - it probably comes from having to cope with Microsoft product names in the past. All those ™s and ®s do nothing for the readability of text. And they look hideous.
I blame the lawyers.
Posted on 06-Dec-07 at 11:27 am | Permalink
iPhone » Blog Archive » Trademark guidelines make for unclear copy wrote:
[...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]
Posted on 06-Dec-07 at 12:40 pm | Permalink
Tom Chandler wrote:
Sadly, I witnessed the rise of that most hideous of naming conventions — Excessive InterWord CapitaliZation SynDrome.
How many good product names went under the wheels of this grammatically out-of-control bus?
Distantly,
The CopyWriter UnderGround
Posted on 06-Dec-07 at 3:50 pm | Permalink
Bruce Pilgrim wrote:
I worked with a corporate lawyer who tried to get me to insert trademarks into quotes cited in case studies, as in:
“We’ve been using Widget(R) software to cure genital warts with great success.”
I explained to her that people don’t actually speak that way, but she always insisted. So I ignored her.
Posted on 07-Dec-07 at 3:20 am | Permalink
Jacob Skir wrote:
Matthew,
the great way to invent a new name is to think about your own personal name.
What is the Google’s term “PageRank”? What does it stand for? Does it stand for the word “page” (= a page of an Internet site)? Or for the name of the Google’s cofounder Larry Page?
At the end of the day, it makes no difference. You invent a new word pointing both to your personal name and to the technical/scientific/political term.
Another great example is the memorable PR move of Russian tsar Peter the Great. He founded the city of Saint Petersburg in 1703. What’s the official explanation? That it was named after Saint Peter the Apostle. Then why not to name it after Saint Paul? Because Peter himself named it.
A fresh Internet example is Craigslist (a centralized network of online classified advertisements) founded in 1995 by Craig Newmark.
When you invent a new term, try to think about your own personal name.
Posted on 08-Dec-07 at 9:59 am | Permalink
MarketingBlurb wrote:
When Trademarks Get in the Way…
I read a great post by Matthew Stibbe at Bad Language this week that talks about a topic that has always bothered me - trademark symbols. Now, I'm not saying I don't like the legal purpose of trademarks. I'm all……
Posted on 10-Dec-07 at 2:55 am | Permalink
David Bradley wrote:
Tom, shouldn’t that be IntraWord Capitalisation(TM)
db
Posted on 10-Dec-07 at 3:37 pm | Permalink
Jonathan Pasky wrote:
Matthew,
As an IP attorney, I understand your frustration. Constant “marking”, as it is called, is used to give notice to the consuming public that a particular word or symbol is being claimed as a trademark/servicemark (™) and/or is registered with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (®).
Sometimes this can get out of hand in marketing copy. While companies understandably want to protect their marks, one or two very conspicuous uses of ™ or ® should be sufficient.
Trademarks/servicemarks always need to be used as an adjective decribing the product or service: so “Adobe® Acrobat® 8 Professional software” or “Adobe® software” is ok, but calling it “Adobe Acrobat” nominalizes “Acrobat” and dilutes the trademark. Savvy marketing/PR/copy experts will give proper notice but keep the attorneys and brand managers happy with minimal, but very noticeable, proper notice in the copy.
Posted on 19-Dec-07 at 5:30 pm | Permalink
Bad Language / My own private aircraft carrier wrote:
[...] If you are wondering why I write LEGO in all-caps, it’s because of their copy / trademark guidelines. It’s been ten years or so since I was designing LEGO games for them but I still can’t help myself. For more on this topic see: Trademark Guidelines make for unclear copy. [...]
Posted on 23-Jan-08 at 5:46 pm | Permalink