comments from naseem javed
- To: <newgtlds-defensive-applications@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: comments from naseem javed
- From: "Naseem Javed" <nj@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 21:05:31 -0500
Submission by: Naseem Javed
Company: ABC Namebank
Date February 7th 2012
It's a very good idea to open this discussion and lay out the facts.
To clarify the element, a 'famous or not so famous trademark'
or a 'big or not so big brand' in reality is a 'name and a name alone' and
that name has to present itself stripped naked to be checked against other
names in question. It must prove to have inherited qualities and worthiness
However, a local or regional layer of trademark protection that may have
served the owners well in the past may not suffice in this global race of
the future for 'name domination' with wide open jurisdictions where the
elasticity of a name must prove its worthiness for such protection. A gTLD
naming is always a global naming issue that MUST face global naming
Applying the basic rules of corporate nomenclature
"A best name will prove to be a liability if it fails on trademark
registrability and therefore it will restrict global expansion."
Trademark professionals may differ on this as they are the proponent of
aggressive trademark registration aimed for 'crush and destroy' and buyout
any opposition in yonder jurisdictions. There are far too many success
stories but most of the time thousands end up with exhausted budgets and
The big branding and global advertising agencies also take a similar
approach. They 'will take any name and create a global brand with lasting
impression'. There are far too many success stories but many tens of
thousands mostly short lived. Names only stay on top of mind until the
expensive fireworks are around.
As we approach the global borderless future of multi-billion online users,
global trademark registrability is the basic test to discover the limitation
of a name. Diluted names, for being injured, cost a fortune in high
maintenance to stay alive.
It can be proven that 95% of names in business have such problems; however
it seems that these disfunctionalities provide fertile grounds for the
trademark and global advertising agencies.
What's so difficult for the boardrooms to figure this out?
Neither the world best MBA programs nor the CMOs have any specialized
understanding of these global naming complexities despite that the global
advertising expenditures pushing these name identities are over 500 billion
Why suddenly the entire advertising trade has declared fear mongering war on
ICANN. Why are weak and 'diluted names' only referred to as 'big brands' and
not as helpless, injured names
on life support? Why should ICANN have to bear the brunt of 'bad-name
management' in the name of 'big-brand-owner's revolt', and why isn't the
truth about unspoken disfunctionalities of mega brand identities not being
discussed in the open?
According to a ABC Namebank study, there are '100 top diluted names' that
are being widely used by some '100 million businesses' around the world. The
sheer number defies logic.
Well protected brands, all over the world, are protected because their name
identity posses special qualities and therefore worthy of such status.
The 'do not sell list' suggested by CRIDO is still the best way to prove the
depth of already existing 'naming fiascoes'.
However, ICANN should welcome any kind of 'defensive registration' for a
reasonable fee and upon submission of their name in need of 'defensive
registration' respond by a professional Name Evaluation Report (NER) such
custom reports will asses marketing suitability and usability of the name
based on global implications with authoritative analysis and
The applicant will have three options, continue, start a procedure to
partially or fully change the name or abandon the idea altogether.
Such NERs should not be confused with the trademark lawyer's letter of
'registrability opinion' always an important tool to start the process, but
always confined to the trademark laws and cannot expand into 'marketing or
creative suitability' issues. Similarly the advertising, re-branding or
re-naming graphic design based exercises, as they are locked in campaign
The NER process addresses diverse aspects of global naming complexities and
if they lead consensus, to modification or creative solutions, global naming
complexities and trademark acceptability rules are already incorporated.
Historically, business naming was never meant to be a wildly creative
exercise but rather a somber and tactical maneuver of corporate nomenclature
Here are the three top questions
Is ICANN becoming the 'global trademark clearance house' to gradually solve
this 'naming chaos'? How will this all work out?
Will global advertising agencies stop calling 'mega brands' to 'diluted
names' or damaged brands? Who will take the name-game blame?
Will the global trademark profession accept the traditional trademark
procedures in serious need of fixing? Who will accept the radical changes?
Here are the three suggestions
ICANN should take the lead in this global debate because it's already
managing 220 million domain names and about to open a new gateway of super
name identities. Any global name clearance house will be a logical extension
of services and further support the gTLD type programs. ICANN has to assume
charge of billion plus domain names in near future.
The globally accepted 'trademark classification system' that allows the same
name being applied and protected in different types of businesses does not
work on global cyber branding platforms. Therefore, brand new knowledge must
be induced in the corporate boardrooms to tackle global naming issues in a
very different light.
Advertising and branding all over the world will have to face up to 'naming'
as an isolated and a most critical component of global cyber branding and
not as a small component of a big ad campaign. There are amazing
opportunities in this thinking at this critical junction.
The trademark profession must adjust to new changes and acquire deeper
understanding of global naming issues and rules of corporate nomenclature.
There are great opportunities in TM portfolio adjustments.
For the first time in last 50 years 'global naming complexities' are being
addressed head on in a wide open global debate where all relevant parties
are engaged. This is all due to the technological progression of the
internet and multibillion online users proving to be natural catalysts. The
world has changed and some traditional thinking has to go.
ICANN and gTLD debate is only assisting the world to better understand the
landscape and re-write the global rules of cyber branding and social