To non-moguls, Elon Musk’s rebrand of Twitter to “X” may seem high risk, amateurish, or even capricious.
Later, Musk posted an image of the character projected on the firm’s San Francisco headquarters and tweeted that x.com now redirects to twitter.com. Branding experts around the globe have been quick to condemn the Twitter shakeup as too sudden and destructive of brand capital. That’s perhaps because even slight name changes are known to be risky. Kentucky Fried Chicken officially rebranded to KFC. Pepsi was once Pepsi-Cola. These successful adjustments took time and careful management.
Musk isn’t renaming fast food or soft drinks. Twitter is in the hyper-dynamic business of information. Musk is agile and well-armed. So maybe new branding rules are being forged. His progressive alienation of Twitter’s traditional users could be an attempt to refresh the platform’s demographic—to draw in those true to his other brands, while shaking off unprofitable sceptics. This would certainly fit with the push X gives towards Musk’s other X brands.
Is X a generic term and thus not trademarkable? My own research argues trademarks used by tech firms involved in consumer search and decision making are inherently generic. But under the 77-year-old Lanham Act that still governs trademarks in the United States, X would have to be a common generic name for all services like Twitter to be refused. It isn’t. It’s mostly just a generic term for the 24th letter of the alphabet.
Education Education Latest News, Education Education Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: rapplerdotcom - 🏆 4. / 86 Read more »