6 ms·

> Imagine how it would have felt if Google or Apple or Facebook had launched a photo-sharing app called Instagram in 2011. "Bolt" is a short, common word. "Ins

> Imagine how it would have felt if Google or Apple or Facebook had launched a photo-sharing app called Instagram in 2011. "Bolt" is a short, common word. "Instagram" is not (it's also more descriptive.) Unfortunately, the days of naming products desirable things like "bolt," and being able to defend them, legally or not, are over. The strange-made-up-word naming trend is annoying, but at least you're guaranteed a name no one else wants.

dblacc 12y ago
>Unfortunately, the days of naming products desirable things like "bolt," and being able to defend them, legally or not, are over. I have a feeling the guys at King disagree with you.
- brandonmenc 12y ago
  Kind of my point. How deep are King's pockets...?
- rythie 12y ago
  They've got the .com though, bolt(.co) don't.
- baby 12y ago
  or Apple.
  - brandonmenc 12y ago
    Apple's choice of name cost them all sorts of money, re: music.
thomasz 12y ago
I'm pretty sure you can get trademark protection for short, common words, as long as they are not descriptive or common for the protected areas. You can name your car bar and your bar car, but not your bar bar and your car car.
- grabeh 12y ago
  I think that part of the issue is that in a competitive marketplace, the risk of a third party either a) objecting to your short common word upon its creation, or b) coming along at a later date and selecting the same or similar mark are much higher than if you create a compound name or a fanciful/unusual combination of words as your mark. Simply put, if you create a fanciful term you will be able to operate with greater reassurance that you will not face trouble in the future in relation to your choice of name. Part of the problem here is the imbalance between the parties' respective positions. The article in fact admits that it is not users being confused that Instagram's app is related to their existing app, but the other way round. You might say that due to Instagram's size, they have the ability to instantly develop goodwill around a new app and its name (I am playing devil's advocate here to an extent). If I was Instagram I would probably offer a small sum to Bolt.co to change their name on the basis that I could offer a sum now or know I have a deep reserve of budget for legal fees to argue that Bolt.co has not developed sufficient goodwill/reputation to be entitled to prevent Instagram's usage of 'Bolt'.
  - philsnow 12y ago
    > If I was Instagram I would probably offer a small sum to Bolt.co to change their name on the basis that I could offer a sum now or know I could have a deep reserve of budget for legal fees to argue that Bolt.co has not developed sufficient goodwill/reputation to be entitled to prevent Instagram's usage of 'Bolt'. What? That is not at all how trademark works. If Instagram wanted, it might have a shot at a protracted lawsuit, attempting to make it not worth Bolt's time to defend the trademark [0]. If that were to happen, though, I would hope that the suit would be dismissed with prejudice because in my non-legal opinion, any reasonable person would agree that Instagram is directly infringing Bolt's trademark in an area of business that is too similar for the average consumer to be able to differentiate. [0] either by bankrupting them if they decide to defend it, or if Bolt can successfully mount a defense, it would require a large time investment by key employees like all the C-level executives, meanwhile Instagram (having more resources by far) is not impeded in its business nearly as much.
    - 12y ago
micampe 12y ago
> The strange-made-up-word naming trend is annoying Why? Is it really a “trend”? Chevrolet, Toyota, Lexus, Microsoft, Kodak, Leica, Nikon, Canon, Nokia, Rolex. Some of these are not entirely made up, but they sound like it if you are not familiar with small Japanese towns.
- brandonmenc 12y ago
  It being annoying seems to be, but time will tell. "Rolex" has certainly played out to be a great made-up name. "Weebly"... eh, I'm not putting my money on that one. http://gawker.com/5062667/the-15-dumbest-web-20-startup-names http://gawker.com/5062667/the-15-dumbest-web-20-startup-name...
- ajross 12y ago
  Toyota is the name of the founder, though the transliteration is archaic. We'd spell it "Toyoda" today.
  - LeonidasXIV 12y ago
    Same as Honda which is also named after its founder. The transliteration in Honda is modern though, as both Toyota and Honda in Japanese end with a 田. But back to the naming thing, I think it is not the worst idea to name things after japanese terms, because often they can be pronounced quite easily and are often rather memorable. I have often forgotten company names because they sounded so stupid and hard to remember.
  - Pxtl 12y ago
    Wikipedia says the difference between the spelling in Toyoda's name and Toyota is deliberate - that there were aesthetic and connotative reasons for spelling the company different from the family name. Although obviously, I'm not sure how the exact Japanese writing would work for that. > But Risaburō Toyoda, who had married into the family and was not born with that name, preferred "Toyota" (トヨタ) because it took eight brush strokes (a lucky number) to write in Japanese, was visually simpler (leaving off the diacritic at the end) and with a voiceless consonant instead of a voiced one (voiced consonants are considered to have a "murky" or "muddy" sound compared to voiceless consonants, which are "clear"). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota Obviously, though, I don't speak Japanese. Would both the family name and the company name be Latinized as Toyoda?

dblacc 12y ago

>Unfortunately, the days of naming products desirable things like "bolt," and being able to defend them, legally or not, are over. I have a feeling the guys at King disagree with you.

brandonmenc 12y ago
Kind of my point. How deep are King's pockets...?
rythie 12y ago
They've got the .com though, bolt(.co) don't.
baby 12y ago
or Apple.
- brandonmenc 12y ago
  Apple's choice of name cost them all sorts of money, re: music.

thomasz 12y ago

I'm pretty sure you can get trademark protection for short, common words, as long as they are not descriptive or common for the protected areas. You can name your car bar and your bar car, but not your bar bar and your car car.

grabeh 12y ago
I think that part of the issue is that in a competitive marketplace, the risk of a third party either a) objecting to your short common word upon its creation, or b) coming along at a later date and selecting the same or similar mark are much higher than if you create a compound name or a fanciful/unusual combination of words as your mark. Simply put, if you create a fanciful term you will be able to operate with greater reassurance that you will not face trouble in the future in relation to your choice of name. Part of the problem here is the imbalance between the parties' respective positions. The article in fact admits that it is not users being confused that Instagram's app is related to their existing app, but the other way round. You might say that due to Instagram's size, they have the ability to instantly develop goodwill around a new app and its name (I am playing devil's advocate here to an extent). If I was Instagram I would probably offer a small sum to Bolt.co to change their name on the basis that I could offer a sum now or know I have a deep reserve of budget for legal fees to argue that Bolt.co has not developed sufficient goodwill/reputation to be entitled to prevent Instagram's usage of 'Bolt'.
- philsnow 12y ago
  > If I was Instagram I would probably offer a small sum to Bolt.co to change their name on the basis that I could offer a sum now or know I could have a deep reserve of budget for legal fees to argue that Bolt.co has not developed sufficient goodwill/reputation to be entitled to prevent Instagram's usage of 'Bolt'. What? That is not at all how trademark works. If Instagram wanted, it might have a shot at a protracted lawsuit, attempting to make it not worth Bolt's time to defend the trademark [0]. If that were to happen, though, I would hope that the suit would be dismissed with prejudice because in my non-legal opinion, any reasonable person would agree that Instagram is directly infringing Bolt's trademark in an area of business that is too similar for the average consumer to be able to differentiate. [0] either by bankrupting them if they decide to defend it, or if Bolt can successfully mount a defense, it would require a large time investment by key employees like all the C-level executives, meanwhile Instagram (having more resources by far) is not impeded in its business nearly as much.
  - 12y ago

micampe 12y ago

> The strange-made-up-word naming trend is annoying Why? Is it really a “trend”? Chevrolet, Toyota, Lexus, Microsoft, Kodak, Leica, Nikon, Canon, Nokia, Rolex. Some of these are not entirely made up, but they sound like it if you are not familiar with small Japanese towns.

brandonmenc 12y ago
It being annoying seems to be, but time will tell. "Rolex" has certainly played out to be a great made-up name. "Weebly"... eh, I'm not putting my money on that one. http://gawker.com/5062667/the-15-dumbest-web-20-startup-names http://gawker.com/5062667/the-15-dumbest-web-20-startup-name...
ajross 12y ago
Toyota is the name of the founder, though the transliteration is archaic. We'd spell it "Toyoda" today.
- LeonidasXIV 12y ago
  Same as Honda which is also named after its founder. The transliteration in Honda is modern though, as both Toyota and Honda in Japanese end with a 田. But back to the naming thing, I think it is not the worst idea to name things after japanese terms, because often they can be pronounced quite easily and are often rather memorable. I have often forgotten company names because they sounded so stupid and hard to remember.
- Pxtl 12y ago
  Wikipedia says the difference between the spelling in Toyoda's name and Toyota is deliberate - that there were aesthetic and connotative reasons for spelling the company different from the family name. Although obviously, I'm not sure how the exact Japanese writing would work for that. > But Risaburō Toyoda, who had married into the family and was not born with that name, preferred "Toyota" (トヨタ) because it took eight brush strokes (a lucky number) to write in Japanese, was visually simpler (leaving off the diacritic at the end) and with a voiceless consonant instead of a voiced one (voiced consonants are considered to have a "murky" or "muddy" sound compared to voiceless consonants, which are "clear"). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota Obviously, though, I don't speak Japanese. Would both the family name and the company name be Latinized as Toyoda?