It is up to the company to promote its invention (accepted as patent registration). There is absolutely no problem in providing a trademark to the product developed and commercialized based on this patent.

There is always a possibility that a patent can be challenged (revoked) by another party. Even in the best case, a patent has a limited life span (normally 20 years) and is only valid in the countries in which it has been filed (limited protection as you cannot cover the whole world). On the other hand, a trademark can last forever, so I agree that it is not a choice between the one or the other. A good product should be protected by both if possible.

Also keep in mind that a "green" label on a product is mostly for purposes of increasing the value of a product in the eyes of customers with a strong environmental inclination. Issues such as reputation, credibility and image are therefore at the centre of marketing a green product, and these qualities are best protected by a trademark.

I think care should be exercised when trying to draw the conclusion of embedding a patent under a trademark. Both patent and trademarks are aimed at protection of different aspects of IP. I would elaborate more on the methodology on how to determine embedding. For example, take apple computers: is the trademark just protecting the computer design (as embodied in the patents), the services, or a division of the company? unless there is documentation towards such information ( which I do not particularly know of in this example) I would be careful on drawing conclusions.

Just a thought

Brands demand a lot of money and work but a middle and long term is the best option

Yes, I agree with the existing comments regarding the use of both patent and trademark for developing and protecting your product. However, I don't think it's worth investing time and money on brands for small businesses. 

Thank you all for your answers. I found them very helpful.

I would also ask now, do you think trademarks can be used in innovation studies even though they (of course) have some limitations? What are the mai barriers that can make the use of TMs not accepted in the literature?

Hi Lorenzo

Can you be specific about your objective, so that I could provide you relevant papers in this area.

Both patent and trademarks are instruments for protection of different aspects of IP. Embedding one IP on the other reinforces IP protection from the legal angle.

Basically, I am writing a paper where I want to use a firm's patent portfolio as a proxy measure for the firm's technological portfolio and its TM portfolio as a proxy for the probability that the firm has introduced a product on the market.

Patents are somewhat unreliable.  There are companies that take out loads of patents without the intention of ever making commercial products out of them, and others that patent very few inventions but plan to exploit all of them.  Trademarks are more reliable as a measure of products on the market, but again, some companies take them out without planning to exploit them (though that will mean they lose the trademark eventually).  Also, how do you count the number of trade marks?  And bear in mind, in many countries there are two types of trademark - those that are registered and go through a formal process of approval, and those that are unregistered but still get used in the course of trade.

Patents can protect new technological advances, however they are expensive, need to be done by country, can be challenged and need to be very carefully crafted in order to stop them being circumvented. Simply measuring number of patents is a poor predictor of innovation portfolio as it does not distinguish between basic patents and marginal changes.

Trademarks can be useful in protecting against "passing off" but due to the cost of developing brands, one brand will cover many innovations.

The one area you are missing is copyright which is automatic and protects written information and drawings. It is used often in software to protect against the copying of code, and if key parts of code are protected, it can prevent substitution by a competitor due to incompatibility. Design copyright is also used to protect the visual design of a product and can also be used for logos.

No doubt, patent portfolio as a proxy measure for the firm's technological portfolio, can be justified to some extent though it is not the right measure. Many company take patents just for 'trolling.' Likewise,  TM need not  be a proxy for the probability that the firm has introduced a product on the market. Trademarks are generally taken much in advance of introduction of the product in market. Sometimes the beta version itself fails though there are plenty of instances where the company after launching the product has withdrawn and the trademark remains in the books only.

I think that a clarification on the  companies reasons  for patenting need to be taken into account , if patents are to be used as company performance indicators of any means.

In Cohen[1], the respondents answered that the reason for patenting was: "to measure the performance of their firm's researchers, to obtain licensing revenue, to improve their position in subsequent negotiations (e.g., cross-licensing negotiations), to prevent patent infringement suits, to prevent copying, to prevent other firms from patenting a related invention ('patent blocking'), and to enhance the reputation of the firm". 

Defensive tactics based on legal action taken by companies need to be analysed and not just labelled as "trolling" since there might be real infringement issues at play especially in oligopoly scenarios.

 Cohen also gives the results of the questionnaire for companies rationale for not patenting "reasons include: difficulty in demonstrating the novelty of the invention, the ease of legally inventing around it, the information disclosed in a patent application, and the costs of applying for or defending a patent.". These issues also highlight the difficulty in patenting products due to costs, effort and the skill required to make a solid patent.at the same time it also underscore that companies willing to invest in patents may have a genuine interest in protecting their IP since the investment on them just for trolling my not be the primary intention but a secondary one in most cases.

There are some that may genuinely do so, but in my opinion can be considered noise with regards to the current rate of patenting in most countries.

[1]Cohen, Wesley M., et al. "R&D spillovers, patents and the incentives to innovate in Japan and the United States." Research policy 31.8 (2002): 1349-1367.

I think that you are mixing two things. Trademarks are brand names and used for naming products. Patents relate to technical inventions. A product with a brand name can include many thousands of patented inventions, made by either the company or licensed in (just think iPhone, for example). Both of the metrics are a measure of a company's degree of innovation. Both are imperfect, as others have noted, but there is no causal relationship between the two.

Neither trademarks nor patents are accurate metrics for quantifying actual activities of companies, as policies differ (see the previous comments in this thread), BUT registered trademarks are a clear indication that marketing/sale of a product or service have already begun or will commence soon. This is simply because a registered trademark can only be defended if evidence of "use in commerce" is presented.

Nevertheless, due to the cost incurred per trademárk per country or region, most registered trademarks will cover families of products/services or be umbrella trademarks. So, they are not useful as a quantitative measure, only as a timeline indicator of first market entry that is impending.

Dear Sven,

as you correctly said a trademark may cover many products. Therefore, I did not want to consider trademark count as a proxy for commercialization, but I was thinking of using the application of a new TM as the probability that a company has introduced one or more products after having developed some technologies (patents). Sounds better?

To be honest, I am a little confused with your question. Are you saying that a company could,  after obtaining a patent,  go and create a  new trademark? Perhaps it might but I do not see how that would be beneficial to the company, which is there  to rake in revenues and increase share-holder value/wealth.  A new trademark may not be known to  consumers and a whole lot of costly marketing activities may well  be required to get that trademark in the mind of a consumer. I tend to think that in the consumer’s mind a brand name ( often a trademark, e.g. CocaCola) conjures up an image of the quality of a product from that company, in this case CocaCola, or of a desirable attribute in the new product. CocaCola, Sony, are company names, brand names and trademarks. I am wondering why would CocaCoal or Sony create new trademarks? That  said, it is possible that following an acquisition,  a company may own other brands/trademarks and the decision to persist with the trademark or brand name is strategic  as the newly acquired company (in an M&A exercise) and its products with the old brand names have associations in the buyers’ minds  with certain qualities. Or it could be that another product with a slight difference may get a new trademark, but I do not see that difference would ever get a new patent, at least at the US Patent Office.

I tend to think that creating new trade marks for newly patented products may not always be profitable. Just consider any well-known company with a new patented product – I think retaining the familiar trademark is likely to be more profitable than in  creating a new trademark and flogging it in the marketplace. To be clear, a  trademark is a word or words, phrase(s), symbol(s), images to distinguish a particular good or services from a manufacturer or vendor from another. Nonetheless, I should like to know of  companies that have created new trademarks which depart from their old ones – I can still learn new things…

PS: It is possible that a company might want to create an entirely new trademark, but that could be,  if a previous trademark has  a negative image of some kind.

There is absolutely no conflict between patenting and obtaining trade mark. Doing both gives stronger IP protection to the product developed. There is  a possibility of  a patent getting challenged (revoked) by another party. Even in the best case, a patent has a limited life span (normally 20 years). Further, it valid only in the countries in which it has been filed (limited protection as you cannot cover the whole world). On the other hand, a trademark can last forever though its validity, too, is limited to the countries where it has been registered.

Companies need to guard its products from all infringements. WTO has defined 7 ICs. All of them protect the product one way or the other. These ICs can be used both as defensive or offensive tool against competitors/infringers.

Encryption, like any other product or sevice can be protected through IC. Non disclosure Agreement will protect it best.

Yes, I think trademark is very critical for commercialization and it can tell whether a firm is planning to sell this product or no.

I remembered my professor had many patents in green energy and he had never thought of a name or trademark for them, but once he knew a potential product/prototype, he was thinking of a trademark for it, even before sending it for patent. (Just to convince the investor and attract them to buy it), but then it might be sold, it might not.

To sum up, I think trademark is a one step further beyond patent and just before commercialization, but not exactly there.

Technology per se cannot have a trademark. It can surely be patented. However, the product or the service coming out of technology can be trademarked.