Naming

First PublishedMay 25, 2026ByAtif Alam

Looking for the strategic positioning chapter (segments, targeting, differentiation, value-proposition)? That lives at Strategy: STP / Positioning. This page covers naming execution — company, product, feature, and tier names plus trademark clearance.

The decision this page enables: how to pick a name (for a company, product, feature, or tier) that’s distinctive, defensible, internationally safe, and trademark-clear — before you commit to it on a launch announcement.

Upstream: Brand Strategy — names should reflect the strategy. Related: Marketing Mix: Packaging — tier naming patterns. Disclaimer: trademark guidance below is informational; hire a real attorney above the $5–10k commitment threshold.

What naming is

Naming is the practice of picking the words that will represent your company, products, features, and tiers — permanently. It is the most permanent decision in branding. You can refresh a logo for $50k. Renaming a launched product costs 50–500× the original naming exercise (re-registering domains, updating contracts, training the sales team, updating SEO, customer comms, the marketing site, every printed asset, every integration, every press article).

The right time to name carefully is before launch. The wrong time is at the customer-confusion moment 14 months in.

The 4 naming categories

Category	What it is	Pros	Cons	Examples
Descriptive	The name describes what the company does	Easy to remember, SEO-friendly	Hard to trademark; locks you into one category	FedEx (Federal Express), General Electric, Pizza Hut
Suggestive	The name hints at the job without describing it	Memorable + extensible	Harder to discover via search; needs marketing	Salesforce, Slack, Airbnb
Abstract / coined	A made-up word with no inherent meaning	Highly trademarkable, distinctive	Requires marketing investment to give it meaning	Kodak, Spotify, Verizon, Pixar
Associative	A real word that borrows associations	Memorable, evocative	Risk of unintended associations across markets	Amazon, Mango, Apple, Tesla

The right category depends on your stage and ambition:

Pre-launch / single-category companies often pick descriptive for clarity (FlightAware, MailChimp).
Ambitious companies expecting to expand categories pick suggestive or abstract to avoid being boxed in (Amazon started as a bookstore; “BookCloset.com” wouldn’t have scaled).
Established companies launching premium / disruption plays often pick associative for emotional resonance (Apple for computers, Tesla for cars).

Most companies that overthink naming pick descriptive too early; most companies that under-think it pick a name that fails trademark clearance.

The naming criteria scorecard

Score each candidate name on these 8 criteria, 1–5 each. Maximum: 40. Anything below 24 is high-risk. Anything below 20 should be cut.

Criterion	Question	What “5” looks like
Meaning	Does it suggest something true about the brand?	Reinforces strategy; no contradictions
Memorability	Will someone remember it after one exposure?	1–3 syllables; novel sound; sticky
Pronounceability	Can someone say it correctly from reading it?	Phonetic; no silent letters; works in primary markets
Domain availability	Is the primary domain available at reasonable cost?	.com / .ai / .io available under $5k
Trademark clearance	Is it trademark-clear in your primary markets?	No identical or near-identical marks in your class
Internationality	Does it work in your top 5 target markets?	No bad meanings, no offensive phonetics
Distinctiveness	Is it different from competitors?	Doesn’t sound like 3 other names in your category
Scalability	Can it stretch beyond your launch product / market?	Wouldn’t constrain a 5-year expansion

The trade-offs are real: descriptive names score high on Meaning + Pronounceability but low on Trademark + Distinctiveness; abstract names invert this. There is no perfect name; pick the trade-off that matches your strategy.

The naming workflow

A practical 4–6 week process.

flowchart TD
    Brief[Step 1: Write the brief]
    Brain[Step 2: Brainstorm 100+ candidates]
    Cut[Step 3: Cut to 25 against criteria]
    Screen[Step 4: Linguistic + cultural screen]
    Legal[Step 5: Preliminary trademark + domain screen]
    Test[Step 6: Customer test the final 5-7]
    Choose[Step 7: Pick top 3 + run formal trademark check]
    File[Step 8: File trademark + buy domains + announce]

    Brief --> Brain
    Brain --> Cut
    Cut --> Screen
    Screen --> Legal
    Legal --> Test
    Test --> Choose
    Choose --> File

Step 1: Write the brief

Constraints make naming easier. The brief lists:

Must: positioning words it should reinforce (e.g. “fast,” “clear,” “human”); domain extensions acceptable (.com only? or .ai / .io ok?); markets it must work in.
Should: archetype it should match; tone (warm vs precise vs bold).
Won’t: words it can’t include (e.g. competitor names, regulated-industry terminology, “ly” suffix, anything ending in “-ify”); markets to deprioritize.

Step 2: Brainstorm 100+ candidates

100 is the magic number. The first 30 are obvious; the next 40 are derivative; the last 30 are where breakthroughs hide. Use:

Word association (start from your purpose; branch to adjacent words)
Metaphor exploration (what’s your product like? what other industries have a similar dynamic?)
Compound coinage (combine 2 short words: Face + Book; Air + bnb)
Foreign-language sources (use a translator + dictionary; Strava came from Swedish)
Mythology / nature / mathematics dictionaries
Genuine constraint games (every name must be 2 syllables; every name must end in “a”)

Step 3: Cut to 25 against criteria

First pass: gut-check. Cut anything obviously bad. Don’t trademark-check yet — it’s expensive and most candidates will fail other criteria first.

Step 4: Linguistic + cultural screen

For each remaining candidate:

Native-speaker pronounce-check in your top 5 markets (ask real humans, not AI)
Reverse-image search the name (does anything horrible come up?)
Slang check (Urban Dictionary, regional slang sites — “Bing” means something different in Chinese; “Vicks” became “Wick” in Germany)
Phonetic clash with competitor names

This step eliminates 30–50% of candidates. The remaining 12–15 are your serious shortlist.

Step 5: Preliminary trademark + domain screen

USPTO TESS (free, US): search for identical and near-identical marks in your trademark class
WIPO Madrid Monitor (free, international): search across 130+ countries
Common-law marks: Google + LinkedIn search to find unregistered uses
Domain check: GoDaddy, Namecheap, plus aftermarket (Sedo, Squadhelp, GoDaddy auctions) for premium domains

This step is preliminary — formal clearance is Step 7. The goal here is to drop obvious losers cheaply.

Step 6: Customer test the final 5–7

Run a short survey (n=50–150) on a panel close to your ICP. Ask:

“If you saw this name on a homepage, what do you think the company does?”
“Pronounce it out loud. Spell it from memory after 30 seconds.”
“Rate it 1–5 on: distinctiveness, memorability, fit-for-our-category.”
(For B2B) “Would you take a sales call from a company with this name?”
(For B2C) “Would you tap on this app icon in the App Store?”

Customer feedback often surprises founders — names you love can sound generic to ICP customers; names you hesitate on can land perfectly.

Step 7: Formal trademark + domain purchase

For the final 3 candidates:

Hire a trademark attorney to run formal searches in your primary markets ($1–3k per candidate, per region).
Decide on filing strategy: file in primary markets immediately; defensive filings in secondary markets if budget allows.
Secure domains before announcing the name. A leaked name attracts cybersquatters within hours.

Step 8: File + buy + announce

Once trademark is filed and domains secured, you can announce. Common timing mistake: announcing before filing leaves you exposed to opportunistic registrants.

Trademark / legal basics

Disclaimer: trademark law is jurisdictional, technical, and changes. The below is informational. Above a $5–10k commitment threshold (any meaningful launch, any product you’ll spend on marketing), hire a real trademark attorney. Many will do an initial clearance for $500–1k.

What a trademark protects

A trademark protects a brand mark (name, logo, slogan) for a specific class of goods or services. “Delta” is a trademark for an airline, a faucet manufacturer, and a hospitality brand — different classes, no conflict.

Where to file

USPTO (US): single-country filing. Average pendency: 12–14 months. Cost: $250–350 per class.
EUIPO (European Union): single filing covers all 27 member states. €850 base.
WIPO Madrid Protocol: file once, designate up to 130 member countries. Cost-effective for international rollout. Requires a “home” registration first.
China: separate filing required. File defensively before launching there — China is first-to-file, and trademark squatting is a documented industry.
India, UK, Canada, Australia, Japan, Brazil: separate filings, modest cost each.

Common-law marks

In the US (and some other jurisdictions), trademark rights can accrue from use even without registration. This means another company using a similar name in commerce — even without registering — can have priority over your registration.

The fix: do a Google + LinkedIn + Crunchbase search for unregistered users before filing. If you find one, options range from “negotiate co-existence” to “pick a different name.”

Trademark classes

There are 45 classes of goods and services. The two most relevant for tech:

Class 9 — software (downloaded, mobile, packaged)
Class 42 — SaaS, software-as-a-service, hosted services

Most modern software companies file in both. Specialty cases (hardware, services) need other classes too.

The .com vs .ai vs .io question

In 2026, the .com obsession has loosened. .ai is acceptable for AI-adjacent companies; .io is well-established for developer tools; .co is fine for consumer; .com still wins for mainstream B2B. The criteria:

Can you afford the .com? Premium 4–6 letter .coms cost $10k–500k+.
Does your audience confuse alternatives with .com? If yes, get .com or pick a different name.
Is the .com squatted with a hostile or competing site? If yes, picking the .ai is fine — but plan for the buy-it-eventually scenario.

What to do if you get a C&D

A cease-and-desist letter is not a lawsuit. Steps:

Don’t ignore it. Acknowledge receipt; don’t admit anything.
Hire an attorney within 1 week. $500–2k to read the letter and reply.
Assess the merit. Most C&Ds are weaker than they sound; many fade with a measured reply.
Negotiate co-existence if the categories are different (different classes, different markets).
Be prepared to rebrand if the claim is strong. Better to rename in month 6 than fight a losing battle in month 36.

Product and feature naming

Naming a company is different from naming a product, a feature, or a tier.

Product names

If the product is your flagship + same as company → use the company name (Slack, Notion, Linear).

If you have multiple products → use a branded house (Linear, Linear Insights, Linear Pulse) or a house of brands (Procter & Gamble owns Tide, Pampers, Gillette).

Approach	When it works
Branded house (one master brand, descriptive sub-products)	Most SaaS; products share an audience; cross-sell is the strategy
House of brands (independent brand identities under a holding company)	Different audiences per brand; brand-equity bound to the product, not the parent
Endorsed brands (sub-brand “by Master Brand”)	Mid-state during transition; the endorsement adds credibility

Feature names

The single most-common naming trap: naming a feature with a noun customers already use generically.

Bad	Better	Why
”Workspaces” (a feature inside the app)	“Cycles”	Customers say “the workspace I just made” — confused with the app’s name
”Channels” (when other apps also call them channels)	“Rooms”	Distinctiveness; ownability
”Boards” (Trello already owns this)	“Plans”	Avoiding competitor association
”Dashboard” (generic, descriptive of every product)	“Pulse”	Brandable, memorable

The fix: feature names should be either purely descriptive (so generic they feel like English) or distinctly brandable (so unique they feel like vocabulary). Anything in between produces confusion.

Tier names

See Marketing Mix: Packaging for the deep treatment. Quick rules:

Identity tiers (“Solo / Team / Business”) explain who the tier is for. Easier for buyers to self-select.
Feature tiers (“Lite / Pro / Enterprise”) suggest a quality ladder. Easier for buyers to compare.
Avoid sizes (“Small / Medium / Large” / “XL”) — feels like a t-shirt, not a software product.

Templates

Naming brief (1 page)

Project:       Name the [company / product / feature / tier]: _____________

Strategy alignment:
   Purpose:    _________________________________________________
   Archetype:  Primary _____________  Secondary _____________
   Personality words: __________________________________________

Must:
   [ ] Reinforces strategy words: ___________
   [ ] Pronounceable in: ___________
   [ ] Available as: .com / .ai / .io / .co / other ___________
   [ ] Trademark-clearable in classes: ___________
   [ ] Available in markets: ___________

Should:
   [ ] 1–3 syllables
   [ ] Phonetic spelling
   [ ] Unique to our category
   [ ] Scales to: ___________

Won't:
   [ ] Sound like a competitor
   [ ] End in: ___________
   [ ] Be a real word (or: must be a real word)
   [ ] Use any of: ___________

Budget for trademark + domain: $___________
Deadline for naming decision: ___________

Decision-makers (max 3): _________________________________________

Naming scorecard

Name	Meaning	Memory	Pronounce	Domain	TM	Intl	Distinct	Scale	Total
Candidate 1	4	5	5	3	4	5	4	4	34
Candidate 2	3	4	4	5	5	4	5	4	34
Candidate 3	5	3	5	2	3	5	3	5	31

Below 24/40 = high risk. Below 20/40 = cut.

Legal-clearance checklist

[ ] USPTO TESS search for identical marks in Class 9
[ ] USPTO TESS search for identical marks in Class 42
[ ] USPTO TESS search for near-identical marks (1-letter variants, similar phonetics)
[ ] EUIPO eSearch+ for EU coverage
[ ] WIPO Madrid Monitor for global signal
[ ] China CNIPA search (separate database; consider local counsel)
[ ] Common-law search: Google, LinkedIn, Crunchbase
[ ] Domain check: .com, .ai, .io, .co, plus your top market TLDs
[ ] Social handle availability: Twitter/X, LinkedIn, Instagram, TikTok, GitHub
[ ] App Store name availability: iOS + Google Play
[ ] Trademark attorney engaged for formal opinion: yes / no
[ ] Filing strategy decided: countries + classes

Metrics to track

Candidate-survival rate — start with 100; how many survive criteria + trademark? Typical: 1–3%. Below 1% = your criteria are too tight or your category is too crowded.
Customer-recall test — % of test-panel who recall the name correctly after one exposure + 30 seconds. Target ≥60%. Below 40% = the name isn’t sticky.
Pronunciation accuracy — % of test-panel who pronounce the name correctly from reading it. Target ≥80% in primary market. Below 60% = re-examine.
Search-rank for branded name — once launched, how quickly do you rank #1 for your own name? Target: within 30 days. Slower = SEO problem; possibly a generic-name issue.
Brand-name confusion in support tickets — % of inbound support that misspells or mis-pronounces the name. Track quarterly; rising trend = onboarding clarity issue.
Trademark challenges in first 24 months — target: 0. One challenge ≠ disaster; multiple challenges = re-examine.

Worked examples

SaaS workspace — Linear-like workspace tool

Company name: “Linear” (associative — borrows associations with “direct, fast, straight-line”).

Scorecard total: 34/40 (low on Domain — premium 6-letter .com cost $200k; team bought linear.app and used it for 18 months before acquiring linear.com).
Trademark approach: filed in Class 9 + 42 in US, EU, UK, Australia simultaneously. Defensive filing in China before any market entry. Total legal: ~$8k.
Product line uses branded house: Linear (flagship), Linear Insights (analytics), Linear Pulse (status pages).
Feature naming win: named the workspaces feature “Cycles” instead of the obvious “Workspaces” — avoided the noun-naming trap. Result: clean support conversations + cleaner sales discovery.
Feature naming loss: initially named a search feature “Search” (descriptive, fine). Renamed to “Quick Search” 9 months in because “Search” got confused with the app’s global search. Lesson: even bland descriptive names benefit from a minimal qualifier.

Fitness app — Strava-like consumer fitness app

Company name: “Strava” (coined; Swedish-origin word meaning “strive”). Abstract/coined category.

Scorecard total: 35/40 (low on Pronounceability in some markets — Western Europeans pronounce it correctly; some Asian markets struggle with the consonant cluster).
Trademark journey: initial filing in US + EU successful. India and Brazil filings ran into pre-existing common-law uses by gyms (unrelated category but similar mark); negotiated co-existence with both for $2k each. Total legal: ~$14k including India + Brazil + China defensive filings.
Tier names: Free, Premium, Summit (identity-style tiers; Summit signals serious athletes; the team’s only “feature-tier-sounding” name).
Workout-pack naming: “Runner’s Spring” (associative + seasonal), “8-Week Strength Foundation” (descriptive — fits the use case), “Recovery Reset” (alliterative). Mix of categories by intent.
Naming win: when launching the Premium tier, the team almost called it “Strava Pro” before research showed “Pro” had a “for serious athletes” connotation that contradicted the inclusive brand. Switched to “Premium” — accessible to everyone, no implied elitism.

Common pitfalls

Naming before trademark check. Renaming a launched product costs $50k–500k+ in updated assets, contracts, SEO, customer comms, sales training. Always preliminary-screen before falling in love.
.com obsession at the expense of meaning. Picking a worse name because the .com is available rarely pays off in 2026 — alternative TLDs have caught on.
Descriptive names that lock you into one category. FlightAware can’t easily expand to trains; PizzaHut can’t easily sell salads. If your strategy includes category expansion, lean suggestive or abstract.
Names with bad meanings in 2nd-tier markets. “Pinto” in Brazil, “Nova” in Spanish-speaking markets, “Vicks” in Germany. A 20-minute native-speaker check prevents 20 months of explaining.
Founder-vanity naming. Names that mean something to the founder but nothing to the customer. The customer’s relationship is with the name, not the backstory.
Naming-by-committee. 8 people in a room produce 8-flavor mush. Naming decision-makers cap: 3. If you can’t get to 3, the issue isn’t naming.
Skipping the customer test. Founder taste is poorly correlated with customer reception. Run a 50-person test on the final 5; you’ll be surprised.
No defensive filings in China. China is first-to-file; squatters monitor public filings in other jurisdictions and beat you to it. If you’re planning Chinese expansion within 3 years, file defensively now.

Tools / further reading

Hello, My Name Is Awesome (Alexandra Watkins) — practical book on company naming, with the SMILE & SCRATCH criteria.
POP: Stand Out in Any Crowd (Sam Horn) — naming + tagline work, written for non-marketers.
Hey, Whipple, Squeeze This (Luke Sullivan) — advertising book with great chapters on naming + headline craft.
Tools: USPTO TESS (free), EUIPO eSearch+ (free), WIPO Madrid Monitor (free), Squadhelp (paid; crowd-sourced naming with included trademark + domain check), Namelix (free AI suggestions), Panabee (free), Lean Domain Search (free).
Hire: a trademark attorney with software experience — $5–15k for initial clearance + filing in primary markets is typical. Ask for a flat-fee quote, not hourly.