> And that is a brand. But it's a brand that exists on the "wrong level", so to speak; it's a brand held in a sort of commons that any organization is free to e

> And that is a brand. But it's a brand that exists on the "wrong level", so to speak; it's a brand held in a sort of commons that any organization is free to enter. Nobody has stewardship over such a brand. How is that a "wrong level" ? You're creating a replicability issue to strip part of the products of their rights to brand recognition. > I think most people, if told that they could either buy an iPhone; or buy a "myPhone" That would be a new brand, though. The question is whether this new myPhone producer be able to market his products under the brand iPhones. Because that's what you're advocating if you're offering to let people produce "champagne" everywhere, for instance. As a matter of fact, when you say : > Brands and growing regions are both "natural kinds", insofar as they're both things you would expect to evolve from many businesses selling a (complex) commodity from the same region I feel you're misled. Growing region recognition is mostly about grandfathering older products, which emerged in an environment where branding was irrelevant, into modern business practices. You don't see it as much now, because everyone brands their products nowadays (e.g. you don't see Silicon Valley software, or Rust Belt autos).