More than once I have used the ostm publicized annual roster of names in sports – the Kentucky Derby horses – to talk about trademarks and branding. There is a disappointing level of interesting names this year among the 20 listed entrants (no offense to the equines).
The closest to intriguing is “T O Password,” which at least to me sounds a bit mysterious and sort of 21st century, although in reality it seems to come from the name of the horse owner (Tomoya Ozasa). A little mystery is a good thing in a trademark. It’s not obvious, it keeps people guessing, and meanwhile, it is composed of a term that people can understand, but which has nothing to do with horses. A trademark which does not directly describe the object using it is a good thing.
But if this is the best name out of the gate, the rest of the names are, well, a little lame. Nonetheless, even this stable of names provides plenty of material for trademark discussions.
Typically, I have gone through the names one-by-one and offered a line or two about the connotations of the horses’ names, the meaning, and the potential value as trademarks. With this group, I am going to do something a little different, and talk about them in batches.
The favorite seems to be “Fierceness.” This is a name that speaks for itself, and as a horse name is probably just fine. But if you are branding a product, and you think the name should describe one of the desirable characteristics of that product, you may want to reconsider. Brand names, like so many of the horse names in this year’s field, are not particularly arbitrary, whimsical or highly creative. For a product, this can increase the challenge of enforcing legal protection.
Leave a Reply