Naming a company used to be straightforward. Find a word that captures what you do, check that no one else in your industry is using it, maybe register a trademark, and you’re done. Kodak. Nike. Sony. Names that meant nothing until they meant everything.

That world is gone.

Today, naming a company is an exercise in navigating overlapping constraints that make traditional approaches nearly impossible. The advice hasn’t caught up. Branding books still talk about linguistic analysis and phonetic appeal. Naming agencies still present etymology decks and syllable studies. Meanwhile, founders are discovering that the name they love is a trademark minefield, the domain costs six figures, and the first three pages of Google results belong to someone else.

The naming problem has fundamentally changed, and most of the industry is still using yesterday’s playbook.

The constraint stack

Understanding why naming is broken requires understanding the constraints that now govern it.

Domain scarcity is real and worsening. Every common english word, most two-word combinations, and vast numbers of invented words are already registered as .Com domains. The good ones are parked, priced for speculation, or attached to abandoned projects that still pollute search results. The “just add ‘get’ or ‘try’ to the front” workaround that worked in 2012 now produces domains that feel desperate and dated.

Trademark density has exploded. Global commerce and digital distribution mean your name doesn’t just need to be clear in your local market—it needs to be defensible across jurisdictions. The trademark databases are dense with registrations, and the cost of conflict is high. A cease-and-desist letter in year three, after you’ve built equity in a name, is a nightmare scenario that happens constantly.

Search results are zero-sum. If someone else owns the first page of Google for your name, you’re starting from a deficit that may take years to overcome. This isn’t just about exact matches—it’s about any term with existing search volume and established results. Choosing a name that puts you in competition with wikipedia entries, established brands, or common phrases is choosing hard mode.

Social handles are their own battlefield. The name might be available as a domain and clear of trademarks, but if @yourname is taken on Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn, and TikTok, you’re facing fragmented presence. Consistent handles matter for discoverability, and they’re increasingly scarce.

AI discoverability adds a new layer. As AI assistants become discovery mechanisms, names need to be unambiguous in spoken and typed queries. Names that are easily confused with common words, or that have many homophones, may get lost in ai-mediated search.

These constraints compound. A name that clears one hurdle often fails another. The intersection of “available domain + clear trademark + ownable search + available handles + AI-friendly” is vanishingly small.

Why traditional naming advice fails

Classic naming methodology focuses on factors that matter less than they used to.

Meaning and etymology. Traditional approaches invest heavily in what a name means—its linguistic roots, its associations, its narrative potential. This produces names that score well in internal presentations but fail practical tests. A beautifully meaningful name is worthless if you can’t own it.

Phonetic appeal. Much is made of how names sound—plosives for strength, soft consonants for approachability, rhythm and flow. These factors matter at the margin, but they’re secondary to availability. The perfect-sounding name that costs $500,000 as a domain is not actually perfect.

Category conventions. Traditional thinking considers what names work in your category, what competitors have done, what signals industry membership. But in a world of digital-first discovery, category conventions matter less. Your name’s job is to be findable and ownable, not to fit a pattern.

Brevity as a virtue. Short names are prized, and for good reason—they’re easier to remember, type, and say. But short names are also the most contested. Every four-letter combination has been registered. The bias toward brevity often leads to dead ends.

What actually works now

The shift in constraints requires a shift in approach.

Start with availability, not ideation. The traditional process—brainstorm names, then check availability—inverts the practical reality. Most names you brainstorm won’t be available. Starting with availability filters (domain searches, trademark screening, handle checks) before ideation saves enormous time and prevents attachment to impossible names.

Embrace invented words. Made-up names face less competition. Google, Spotify, zillow—these meant nothing until their companies gave them meaning. Invented names are more likely to be available across domains, trademarks, and handles. The trade-off is that they require more investment to imbue with meaning, but that investment is often cheaper than acquiring a “real word” name.

Consider unexpected tlds strategically. The .Com religion is weakening. For certain audiences—particularly younger, more digitally native ones—.Io, .Co, .Ai, and category-specific tlds are acceptable. This isn’t universally true, and for mass-market consumer brands, .Com still matters. But for b2b, tech, and niche plays, alternative tlds expand the possibility space significantly.

Compound creatively. Two-word names, when both words are unexpected, can find availability. The key is avoiding obvious compounds (already taken) and generic combinations (hard to own in search). Surprising juxtapositions—words that don’t usually go together—are more likely to be available and more distinctive when they are.

Check the full stack early. Before falling in love with any name, check: exact-match .Com (or your target TLD), trademark databases in relevant jurisdictions, Google results for the term, social handles on platforms that matter to you. This takes an hour per name and saves weeks of wasted development on names that won’t work.

Budget for acquisition. Sometimes the right name is taken but acquirable. Having budget and willingness to negotiate for a domain changes what’s possible. Many parked domains can be bought for four figures. Some require five or six. Knowing your ceiling early helps focus the search.

The process that works

A modern naming process looks something like this.

First, define the constraints explicitly. What’s your domain budget? Which tlds are acceptable? Which social platforms matter? What jurisdictions need trademark clearance? What’s your timeline?

Second, generate volume with availability in mind. Instead of brainstorming dream names, brainstorm patterns and word types that are more likely to be available: invented words, unexpected compounds, words from other languages, obscure english words, creative respellings.

Third, screen aggressively before attachment. Check availability across the full stack for each candidate before anyone gets emotionally invested. Expect most candidates to fail. This is normal.

Fourth, test what survives. The names that clear availability screening can then be evaluated on traditional criteria: meaning, sound, distinctiveness, fit. But only names that pass the practical tests earn the right to be evaluated aesthetically.

Fifth, invest in the winner. Once you’ve chosen an available name, invest in building its meaning. The name’s job is to be an empty vessel that you fill with associations through consistent, quality work. Any available name can become a great name with enough investment.

The uncomfortable truth

Most founders and brand teams spend too long on naming because they’re optimizing for the wrong things. They want a name that’s perfect—meaningful, distinctive, short, available, loved by everyone. That name doesn’t exist.

The goal isn’t a perfect name. It’s a functional name—one you can own, defend, and build upon. The world’s most valuable brands have names that, in isolation, are arbitrary. Apple is a fruit. Amazon is a river. Meta is a prefix. These names became meaningful through what the companies did, not through what the names meant.

Find a name you can own fully. Then spend the next decade making it mean something. That’s the naming game now.

Constraint	Description	Impact on Naming	Traditional Focus?	Example
Domain Scarcity	Availability of .com and other relevant domains is extremely limited due to saturation and speculation.	Short and common names are often unavailable or expensive, forcing compromise or alternatives.	No	Common words already taken; expensive parked domains
Trademark Density	Trademark registrations have increased globally, requiring cross-jurisdiction clearance.	Many names that sound good are legally risky, leading to possible cease-and-desists.	No	Trademark conflicts across countries
Search Results Competition	Owning the first pages of Google is crucial; existing brands dominate results for many terms.	Names competing with Wikipedia or established brands are hard to promote and find.	Indirectly	Common phrases with strong search presence
Social Handle Availability	Consistent handles across key social platforms are hard to secure, fragmenting brand presence.	Disjointed or unavailable social names reduce brand discoverability and trust.	No	Popular usernames taken on Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn
AI Discoverability	Names must be unambiguous for AI voice and text search to avoid confusion and missed queries.	Names with homophones or common-word similarity fail to be found effectively in AI-assisted search.	No	Homophones and ambiguous spellings
Note: Traditional naming advice often overlooks these modern constraints in favor of linguistics or aesthetics.