Brand Naming Methodology

Purpose

This recipe produces a scored shortlist of 3-5 startup name candidates, each validated for domain availability, trademark conflicts, linguistic safety, and social handle availability — ready for final selection, domain registration, and trademark filing. The output replaces gut-feel naming with a structured, risk-aware process that prevents the two most expensive naming mistakes: trademark infringement and unusable domains. [src2]

Prerequisites

• Business concept or value proposition — from founder or Startup Idea Structuring Template
• Target customer profile — defines the audience whose perception matters most
• Geographic scope decision — which countries/regions need trademark protection
• Web browser — all screening tools are web-based, no software installation required
• Spreadsheet tool — Google Sheets, Excel, or Notion for the scoring matrix

Constraints

• Trademark search at USPTO covers US federal marks only. Common-law rights exist for unregistered marks, so web and state-level searches are also required. [src3]
• The USPTO replaced TEAS Plus/Standard with a single base filing fee of $350 per class of goods/services, effective January 18, 2025. Additional surcharges of $100-$200 per class may apply. [src4]
• WIPO Global Brand Database contains 50+ million records across 70+ databases but does not include all national registrations. [src5]
• Domain aftermarket prices are unpredictable. Set a hard ceiling before searching to prevent emotional overspend.
• Social media handles can be squatted quickly. Reserve handles within 24 hours of shortlisting a name.

Tool Selection Decision

Which path?
├── User is non-technical AND budget = free
│   └── PATH A: DIY Free — AI generators + USPTO/WIPO search + Namechk
├── User is non-technical AND budget up to $2,000
│   └── PATH B: DIY Paid — Squadhelp contest + professional TM search + domain purchase
├── User is semi-technical or developer AND budget = free
│   └── PATH C: Systematic Free — structured brainstorm + API-based checks + scoring matrix
└── User has budget > $5,000
    └── PATH D: Agency — naming agency (Igor/Lexicon) + IP attorney + full linguistic screening

Execution Flow

Step 1: Define Naming Criteria

Duration: 30-45 minutes · Tool: Spreadsheet

Define what a good name looks like before brainstorming. Cover business description, target customer, desired emotional tone, preferred naming style (descriptive, evocative, invented, compound, founder, acronym, metaphorical, or playful), and hard requirements including domain, language, and syllable constraints. [src1]

Verify: All sections completed with specific answers. · If failed: Pause naming and complete brand positioning first.

Step 2: Brainstorm Name Candidates

Duration: 1-3 hours (then 48-hour cooling period) · Tool: Whiteboard/doc + AI generators

Generate 30-50 candidates using 6 rounds: descriptive seeds, evocative associations, metaphor exploration, compound combinations, invented words, and AI generation (Namelix, Squadhelp, or ChatGPT). Do not evaluate during brainstorming — volume first, filtering later. Wait 48 hours before evaluating, as names that seemed brilliant often lose appeal. [src2]

Verify: 30+ candidates spanning at least 3 naming styles. · If failed: Run another session with different participants or AI tools.

Step 3: Screen Linguistically

Duration: 1-2 hours · Tool: Google Translate + native speaker checks

Check every candidate for pronounceability (one obvious pronunciation?), spelling ambiguity, unintended meanings in target languages (Spanish, French, German, Portuguese, Mandarin at minimum), competitor similarity, and visual issues in lowercase and uppercase. [src6]

Verify: All candidates checked in at least 5 languages. · If failed: Eliminate any name with pronunciation or negative foreign-language issues immediately.

Step 4: Check Domain Availability

Duration: 30-60 minutes · Tool: Namecheap, GoDaddy, or Dynadot

Check .com first (gold standard), then alternative TLDs in priority order: .co, .io, .ai, .app, .dev, or industry-specific extensions. For taken .com domains, check if parked or active, and whether available via broker (Sedo, Afternic, Dan.com). With 157+ million registered .com domains, short brandable .com names are increasingly scarce. [src7]

Verify: Each finalist has at least one viable domain within budget. · If failed: If .com is taken by an active business in a related industry, likely a trademark risk too — eliminate.

Step 5: Search Trademarks

Duration: 1-2 hours · Tool: USPTO Trademark Search + WIPO Global Brand Database

Search USPTO (exact name + phonetic variants + wildcards, both Live and Dead marks), WIPO Global Brand Database (international marks), EUIPO if EU market is relevant, and common-law search via Google + state business registries. Note relevant Nice Classification classes (Class 9: software, Class 35: advertising/business, Class 42: SaaS). [src3] [src5]

Verify: Every finalist searched in USPTO + WIPO at minimum. · If failed: Live mark in same class = eliminated. For CAUTION cases, budget $500-1,500 for IP attorney opinion.

Step 6: Check Social Handle Availability

Duration: 15-30 minutes · Tool: Namechk or Namecheckr

Check username availability across priority platforms: X/Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, GitHub (if tech). If exact handle is taken, check variants (get[name], [name]hq, [name]app). Reserve available handles immediately — within 24 hours of shortlisting.

Verify: 70%+ handle availability across priority platforms. · If failed: Deprioritize unless domain and trademark signals are exceptionally strong.

Step 7: Score and Select Final Name

Duration: 30-45 minutes · Tool: Scoring spreadsheet

Score each finalist across 8 weighted criteria: memorability (0.15), pronounceability (0.10), distinctiveness (0.15), brand fit (0.15), domain quality (0.15), trademark safety (0.15), social handles (0.05), scalability (0.10). Have at least 3 people score independently. Select winner, runner-up, and reserve. [src8] [src1]

Verify: 3+ independent scorers. · If failed: If top two score within 0.2 points, break tie using trademark safety then domain quality.

Output Schema

{
  "output_type": "brand_name_shortlist",
  "format": "JSON",
  "columns": [
    {"name": "name", "type": "string", "description": "Candidate brand name", "required": true},
    {"name": "naming_type", "type": "string", "description": "Category: descriptive, evocative, invented, compound, metaphorical, playful", "required": true},
    {"name": "weighted_score", "type": "number", "description": "Weighted score from 0-5 across 8 criteria", "required": true},
    {"name": "domain_status", "type": "string", "description": "available (.com), available (alt TLD), aftermarket ($X), unavailable", "required": true},
    {"name": "trademark_status", "type": "string", "description": "CLEAR, CAUTION, or BLOCKED with details", "required": true},
    {"name": "social_availability_pct", "type": "number", "description": "Percentage of priority platforms where handle is available", "required": true},
    {"name": "recommendation", "type": "string", "description": "winner, runner-up, reserve, or eliminated", "required": true}
  ],
  "expected_row_count": "3-5",
  "sort_order": "weighted_score descending",
  "deduplication_key": "name"
}

Quality Benchmarks

If below minimum: Re-run brainstorm with broader inputs and expand trademark search to WIPO at minimum.

Error Handling

Cost Breakdown

Anti-Patterns

Wrong: Falling in love with one name before checking availability

Founders frequently brainstorm a single name, build emotional attachment, then discover the .com costs $25,000, there is a live trademark, and the social handles are taken. Sunk-cost bias leads to overspending or legal risk. [src2]

Correct: Generate 30+ candidates before checking any availability

Treat naming as a funnel. Start wide, filter systematically. Emotional attachment should only develop after a name has passed all screening steps.

Wrong: Choosing a descriptive name for long-term trademark protection

Descriptive names are nearly impossible to trademark because they describe a category, not a brand. The USPTO will likely reject them on descriptiveness grounds. [src3]

Correct: Prefer invented, evocative, or metaphorical names for trademarkability

Invented words and arbitrary names receive the strongest trademark protection. If a descriptive name is desired, plan to build secondary meaning over years. [src1]

Wrong: Skipping trademark search because "we're just a small startup"

Trademark infringement liability applies regardless of company size. A cease-and-desist can force an expensive rebrand: new domain, new packaging, new marketing, lost brand equity. [src4]

Correct: Always search USPTO + WIPO before registering a domain or ordering business cards

A 2-hour search costs $0 and prevents $10,000-$100,000 in rebrand costs. Treat it as a non-negotiable gate.

When This Matters

Use when a founder or team needs to select a brand name for a new company or major product and wants to avoid the most common and expensive naming mistakes. Requires at minimum a defined business concept and target customer as inputs. Produces a scored shortlist with full availability validation, ready for domain registration and trademark filing.

Related Units

• Brand Positioning Framework — complete positioning before starting naming
• Visual Identity Design Guide — design logo and visual system after name selection
• Landing Page Creation Playbook — build first landing page with finalized name
• Brand Voice and Messaging Framework — define brand voice aligned with name character