Just as savvy name creators know the importance of screening recent USPTO filings to identify potential roadblocks to name nirvana, those who seek out the latest and greatest in tech, such as Engadget,  recognize that behind every new filing exists the possibility of the  next great game changer. Or, perhaps just another MP3 player.

One of my favorite lists is the New York Times annual publication of buzzwords. As one would expect in an election year, this year's list is chock full of neologisms, portmanteaus and idiomatic expressions with a distinct political bent. Let's just say I'm very thankful for not have to decide between 'Caribou Barbie' and 'Hockey Mom' come January 20th.

With greedy ideas from individuals without respect for the concept of public domain still fresh in my mind, lo and behold, we find greedy ideas from those without respect for the concept of intellectual property. Domain News Wire shares their advice regarding a common trademark scam – just push delete!

...to a Blind Horse, or so said The Faces way back in 1971. In the present tense, we can safely assume the same to be true when communicating over the Internet. However, Ars Technica shares the cost of a wink may be on rise "...if you run a business in Russia and you make use of the winky smiley face, however, then you may soon find yourself being asked to pay royalties to Oleg Teterin, an entrepreneur who claims he owns the trademark to the popular emoticon in Russia." For those of you who may not be familiar with the ubiquitous smiley face, an emoticon is a symbol or combination of symbols used to convey emotional content in written or message form. According to Wikipedia, "The word is a portmanteau of the English words emotion (or emote) and icon." I guess it may be time to look up the emoticon for greedy ideas from individuals without any respect for the concept of public domain.

A trademark 'trainwreck' may be brewing over Grand Central, which may soon come to represent different things to the same audience. MacNN reports that the US Patent & Trademark Office published Apple’s latest trademark application for Grand Central under application 77626943. As nifty as the future support for multicore systems within Snow Leopard appears to be, Macworld insightfully reminds us that Google "...offers a service of the same name." While the name may be the same, Google claims that Grand Central users "...can be reached with a single number, answer a call at any phone you want, seamlessly switch phones in the middle of a call, and even know whether a call is important before you take it." Given Apple's well deserved reputation of slavish attention to detail for their products, it's a bit of a mystery why the company is so challenged by the concept of trademark due diligence. The present case is highly reminiscent of the not too long ago brouhaha over the Rendevous name, which Apple was forced to abandon in favor of Bonjour.

As reported by the WSJ, the tempest surrounding the Blackberry Storm continues unabated in spite of a recent firmware update. For those unfamiliar with the search for an iPhone killer, the outburst over RIM's first salvo continues unabated on many gadget boards. The 'tempest in a teapot', or perhaps 'storm in a teacup', is a fine example of (not) applying the 'worst possible scenario' rule to a potential brand name. The next time a future brand name is under consideration, I strongly suggest extending an invitation to a few creative souls to engage in a bit of  'Negative Nameplay,' the round-robin format game where everyone shares an unflattering context for the name in question. Failstorm, indeed!

"No Fun, My EU, No Fun," that tuneful juxtaposition of Motor City favorite sons Henry Ford and James Newell Osterberg, aka Iggy Pop, has come to an end. As reported by Autoblog, "Ford has been in a battle with the European Union Trademark office over the word 'FUN' since 2005, and the Detroit-based automaker has been denied exclusive rights to the happy word until yesterday. The European Court of First Instance in Luxembourg overturned an earlier decision against Ford, saying the word FUN is too vague and subjective to give the word a descriptive character." Based on his illustrious history, it’s fairly certain Mr. Pop would object to that statement. No worries, Iggy, as there’s always the jingle to be considered.

Well-respected as a manufacturer of automobiles, the BMW brand is also world-renowned for its ability to stay 'on brand,' i.e., slavish attention to detail for every potential expression of its core values. As an avid reader of the many BMW fan sites such as BimmerPost and BimmerFile, I was intrigued to find that two of my passions, branding and bimmering, intersect in this following tidbit from BMW Blog: "Sorry guys, the new BMW Z4 wasn’t present at the L.A Auto Show, despite the previous confirmations of the new roadster presence there. Apparently, there was an issue with the sDrive trademark name and due to late legal issues, BMW decided to hold off the November launch." With a decidedly 'off brand' impression, this cautionary tale illustrates that even the world's best marketers can sometimes fall victim to the challenge of global trademark development.

Updated: Take a peek at the new Z4 after the jump!

I wish there was an engaging story to share regarding my absence from Naming Clement. Alas, other than the fact that Clement has been busy naming and all of the other good things that come with managing a company, there is no such story to share. If the price was right, perhaps I could engage fellow true believers in the power of storytelling who have taken up residence at Dandelion. Stuart Elliott provides a peek beyond the lion's tooth in his latest Advertising column for the New York Times.

It takes a bit of moxy to go head to head with an established market leader and strike at the heart of their core competency. When the market leader is Google, and the core competency is search engine optimization, it will unquestionably require something more - perhaps a bit of cool blue on your home page for starters. Miquel Helft of the NYT's nicely outlines the other factors that may influence future success or failure, including the incestuous nature of Silicon Valley, in his article titled "Former Employees of Google Prepare Rival Search Engine." For an insiders' take, check out Tech Crunch. My own 'outsider' perspective reveals sufficient interest to determine if early stumbles overwhelm the promise of a new and unique approach to searching. For now, the provocative name will have to suffice as a testament of their fortitude, which at the very least should be makes things quite interesting, and in no way is to be considered as a 'backsided' comment.

Google sure hopes so, as we learn from Ars Technica's take on Knol: "Knol is Google's approach to wikis that focuses on genuine content from verified authors—and paying said authors for their time. The new product is drawing attention and scrutiny from nearly every possible angle, and now it's open to the world." Of interest to namers is the pronunciation: nol, noll or kewl? While you ponder the correct answer, I'll refer to the other quotes attributed to Bertrand Russell. As many of us well know, "There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge."

An invitation to celebrate Christmas in July is as good a reason as any to revisit Naming Clement and fire up a new post. Although the invitation was not forwarded by Preston Sturges himself, I accepted all the same! Speaking of 'Naming Clement', Clement has been very busy Naming! As name ideation, creation and assessment is my joie de vive, let's just say life is good! Speaking of joie de vive, kudos to the Nomen office in the UK for their recent success naming the new Lotus Evora. I'd say it would fit perfectly in my garage just in case it won't fit under the tree. Joie de vive, indeed!

Long dormant brands such as Brim, that is, and for that matter, so am I! After a much deserved hiatus due to my immersion in project (and profitable) activities, Rob Walker's "Can a Dead Brand Live Again?" in Sunday's New York Times Magazine compels me to fire up TypePad to share that Rob gets 'it', and as such, provides a great read while providing new insight on how to define 'brand equity'. To expand on the theme, check out his blog http://www.murketing.com/journal/ for more pearls of wisdom. Don't forget the Brim, as I settle for the closest I get to decaf by enjoying a cup of Starbuck's new Pike Street Roast to fuel those 'to do' items within Evernote!

Although I may not agree with every tidbit of marketing advice posted by Seth Godin, sometimes it's the effort that counts. Seth swings for the fence and dismisses every generic-sounding descriptive name imaginable in a recent post entitled, "A dumb branding strategy," validating for this namer the closely bound relationship between a brand and the name. The supporting arguments include an absence of relevance for many descriptive names in tandem with the challenges inherent in future attempts to protect their use as a trademark. Returning to the importance of effort, Seth extols his readers to remember "You can do better." Swing away, Seth, swing away.

Today's Wall Street Journal probes why many drugs approved for use in Europe fail to find their way to American shores in an article tltled "Overseas Drugs Hit U.S. Regulatory Snags". Sanofi-Aventis SA's obesity pill rimonabant, known in Europe as Acomplia, is one such example. If and when approved in the US, it is not necessarily a given to be marketed using the same brand name, as it is common to find distinct brand names for the same molecule from the same manufacturer in different markets. Pfizer's varenicline, a smoking cessation treatment, is marketed as Chantix in the United States, and as Champix in Europe, Mexico, Canada and Australia. The well-known Celebrex is another example, marketed as Celebra within many European markets. One reason is that the highly subjective review of drug names and local differences in similar drug names may sometimes leave the respective agencies, FDA in the US, and EMEA in Europe, to reach different conclusions regarding the suitability of a name. Another consideration is the application of a regional, rather than global, naming strategy to emphasize local cultural and linguistic preferences or to minimize the risk of parallel importation.