直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Article

The Name Game: Practical Branding Tips for Robotics Companies

July/August 2020

The Journal of Robotics, Artificial Intelligence & Law

By B. Brett Heavner; Yinfei Wu

As robotics and artificial intelligence (AI) technologies continue to grow, businesses in this field face the challenge of how they should name their new technologies. Moreover, as part of this naming process, these businesses must decide whether the name that they have chosen will be (a) their exclusive brand/trademark, or (b) a generic term for their new technology that will enter the public’s vocabulary. Failure to distinguish between trademarks and generic names can lead to significant branding problems later making it impossible to distinguish a business’s product or service from that of its competitors. In this article, Finnegan attorneys Brett Heavner and Yinfei Wu identify common trademark pitfalls that robotics companies face and provide practical tips for avoiding them.

Read the full article here. 

Tags

branding

Downloadable Files

  • PUBLISHED - The Journal of Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, an

Related Practices

Trademark and Brand Management

Trademark Counseling and Prosecution

Related Industries

AI, Electronics, and Information Technology

Robotics

Related Offices

Washington, DC

Related Professionals

B. Brett Heavner
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4073
Email
Yinfei Wu
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4428
Email

Originally printed in The Journal of Robotics, Artificial Intelligence & Law in July/August 2020. This article is for informational purposes, is not intended to constitute legal advice, and may be considered advertising under applicable state laws. This article is only the opinion of the authors and is not attributable to Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, or the firm’s clients.

Related Insights

Webinar

Implementation of Long-Arm Jurisdiction by the UPC Court and German National Courts: Strategic Considerations and Practical Implications

May 12, 2026

Webinar

Charitable

Brand Action London

May 4, 2026

London

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Affirms Noninfringement Where Expert’s Analysis of Means-Plus-Function Claim Failed to Account for Disclosed Structure

March 17, 2026

Articles

Why Fashion Brands are Doubling Down on US Utility Patents

Why Fashion Brands are Doubling Down on US Utility Patents

March 10, 2026

Conference

WTR Live: Brand Strategy Summit Europe 2026

March 4-5, 2025

London

At the PTAB Blog

Director Reinforces Post-Revvo Limits on Inconsistent Claim Construction Positions Between District Court and the PTAB

February 24, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Split over “Plainly Dissimilar” Design, Affirms Summary Judgement of Non-infringement

February 24, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Top Glory Tips the Scales: Change in Design Patent Law Overcomes Discretionary Denial in First‑of‑Its‑Kind Decision

January 27, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Affirms Cancellation of Registration Based on Priority of Common Law Rights

January 13, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP