This blog was authored by Trademark Attorney Brian Goldberg(Opens in a new tab/window), International Trademark Agent at Trademark Ventures(Opens in a new tab/window). The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views or position of IP Australia, and should not be taken as constituting advice. If you require guidance specific to your situation, you should consider seeking professional advice.
As the AI-boom continues, founders are racing to build memorable brands in a crowded, high-stakes market. One trend that is not good for branding is naming your AI company, tool, or model after a founder’s name (e.g., “Julie” or “Alex”). It feels personal, authentic, and easy... But in the world of trademarks and brand building, this approach often creates more problems than it solves — especially for AI and technology driven businesses.
Personal names as trademarks sit low on the spectrum of distinctiveness. Trademark law requires distinctive and not descriptive or common marks because the purpose of the trademark is to clearly identify a single source of goods or services. Personal names, however, are primarily descriptive of an individual, making them harder (and sometimes impossible) to protect without proving “secondary meaning” — that consumers associate the name exclusively with your brand through extensive use and marketing. In addition, if by chance the person's name is popular then securing the trademark is unlikely.
Tech founders, here are the top reasons your tech and AI brands should steer clear of people’s names — and opt for more distinctive, future-proof alternatives instead.
1. Weak trade mark protection and higher rejection risk
Personal names are indeed hard to successfully trademark, particularly when seeking formal registration. In most jurisdictions (including the US via the USPTO, EUIPO, and equivalents like IP Australia), personal names are not inherently distinctive. Trademark law requires marks to be distinctive; meaning they must identify a single source of goods/services rather than just describe something generic or common. Personal names (especially surnames) are treated as descriptive or primarily merely a surname.
To register a personal name, you usually must demonstrate secondary meaning—that through extensive use, advertising, and sales, the public now associates the name exclusively with your brand, not just a person.
This involves substantial evidence: years of exclusive use, sales figures, advertising spend, media coverage, consumer surveys, etc.
For new or small businesses, this is tough and expensive—often taking many years of heavy investment.
Rare or unique names (e.g., made-up combinations or very uncommon surnames) may be easier, but most everyday names don't qualify without proof.
There have been successful examples that have managed to secure trademark rights through the burden of evidence of becoming well known.:
McDonald's (from the McDonald family) — achieved through massive global use.
Ford (Henry Ford) — built over decades.
Gucci, Chanel, Versace — luxury brands where the name became synonymous with the products via extensive marketing.
Regardless it may be more appropriate to avoid seeking to brand “AI” with peoples names.
2. Scalability
Tying your brand to a personal name can limit your brand's growth. Investors and even acquirers prefer brands that stand independently of any one individual — it’s easier to scale, license, franchise, or sell.
3. Increased risk of infringement disputes and consumer confusion
Personal names are common — millions share them. Using one increases the chance of conflict with existing trademarks, businesses, or even other individuals asserting rights.
There have been high profile examples of name disputes here in Australia, from famous pop stars to iconic fashion brands. These cases have demonstrated that no matter how famous the brand becomes, when using a personal name, there is a reasonable chance that another person might also want to protect their name which obviously dilutes both names, may cause confusion and from a trademark perspective, perhaps better to avoid from the onset.
In relation to deciding on a brand name for technology and AI’s, seeking to personalise your AI with a person's name will be challenging to claim monopoly rights for and more likely to end up in a dispute.
Better alternatives for tech brands in 2026
Focus on distinctive, invented names that are arbitrary or suggestive — easier to trademark, globally protectable, and memorable.
A strong trademark branding strategy is essential for AI businesses in 2026 is to aim for the strongest categories on the spectrum of distinctiveness:
Fanciful (invented words): Grok (xAI), Perplexity,
Arbitrary (common words unrelated to AI): Anthropic, GPT,
Suggestive (hint at benefits without describing): Llama (Meta), Gemini (Google).
Avoid:
Descriptive terms (e.g., “SmartAI”, “FastChat”) → require years of secondary meaning to register.
Personal names → hard to protect without massive proof (as we discussed).
Generic terms (e.g., “GPT”) → practically unprotectable (see OpenAI’s failed “GPT” attempt).
It is essential to create a very distinctive brand name for “AI” rather than using a simple name especially that AI are most likely global reaching technologies and must be considered distinctive across all international markets which is extremely challenging and practically impossible for simple names.
Final thoughts: Build a brand that outlives you
In 2026, tech and AI brands aren’t just products — they’re ecosystems with massive valuation potential. A personal name might feel right today, but it often becomes a liability tomorrow. Choose a brand name that protects your innovation, scales effortlessly, and stands strong in court.