In Part 1, we explored relevance and the comfort that descriptive names can provide. In Part 2, we turn to another essential criterion in naming: protectability.
Protectability is Where Naming Becomes Real.
And it’s the barbed wire that leaves the most scars, unfortunately.
Ideas for names are plentiful. Lists can be generated quickly. Favorites emerge. Enthusiasm builds. But very quickly, the process runs into a practical question: can this name actually be owned?
That question turns an idea into a brand asset.
A Quick History Lesson
You can thank an English beer for the intellectual property rights you’re afforded in trademarks. In 1876 Bass beer owned the original trademark for a red triangle logo.
Since then, trademark and intellectual property law has exploded into a field all its own, and the bane of many burgeoning brands. You can drown your sorrows in a Bass when you look at how many times your favorite brand name idea is taken in the US Patent and Trademark database.
The purpose is simple. Trademarks protect the distinct identity of a brand so customers know who they are buying from.
Fast Forward to Today
For teams working through naming today, this often introduces an unexpected shift.
Naming begins as a creative exercise. Ideas are generated. Possibilities expand. But the moment a promising name encounters the trademark database, the process becomes something else entirely. A name that feels original often turns out to be unavailable.
• Sometimes it has already been registered.
• Sometimes it sits too close to an existing mark (code for name in attorney speak).
• Sometimes it simply cannot be defended.
In those moments the difference between an idea and a name becomes clear. A name is something you can own.
Today it is easier than ever to generate hundreds or even thousands of naming ideas in seconds. But speed does not solve the underlying challenge. AI can propose options, but it cannot guarantee that any of them are legally available.
Artificial intelligence has added a new wrinkle to this process. One may think AI tools would make all this naming business easier with the ability to generate hundreds of naming ideas in seconds. But this can create artificial confidence. Speed does not solve the underlying issue: legally owning a brand name is harder than ever.
Ownership is the difference between an idea and a name.
If you start off the naming process thinking this is a creative process, you’ll quickly realize – based on the frustration, angst, and anger – the naming process is more legal than creative. In practice, more ideas often create more false confidence rather than better outcomes.
This is where the relationship to relevance becomes important.
In Part 1 we explored the difference between descriptive relevance and suggestive relevance. That distinction matters even more when protectability enters the picture.
Descriptive names live close to the category they describe. Because of that proximity, they often overlap with language that many businesses might reasonably want to use. The closer a name sits to the category, the harder it becomes to claim as distinct intellectual property.
Yes, being suggestive about the brand you’re building, storytelling in deep metaphorical waters will give you options that are more protectable.
Suggestive names tend to sit farther away from the literal description of the offering. They rely on metaphor, association, or attributes that hint at the brand’s meaning without spelling it out. That distance often creates more room for legal ownership.
The same qualities that make a name more memorable can also make it more protectable.
This does not mean the process becomes easy. Even strong naming concepts encounter legal hurdles. But starting from a place that allows for distinctiveness dramatically improves the odds of finding something that can be defended.
And that distinction matters more than it may first appear.
Intellectual property is worth protecting. And finding an ownable name is worth the challenge.
A name is not just a label. It is a piece of intellectual property that the brand will invest in, promote, and build meaning around over time. Protecting that asset ensures that the effort invested in building the brand continues to accrue value to the organization that created it.
Without that protection, the name remains just an idea.
Protectability can feel like a constraint in the naming process. In practice, it is one of the forces that leads to stronger, more distinctive names.
And when protectability and relevance work together, the result is not only ownable but memorable as well.
That is where we turn to Part 3.
