Talk:Wordmark

message: Is Wikipedia's logo really a wordmark? Its logo usually comes with the puzzle globe and the text. --Abdull (talk) 12:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia a wordmark? 

message: The info pages of all three sample wordmarks used in this article (Coca-Cola, Google, Government of Canada) say: "It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain." I'm curious, as this article states "In the United States and European Union, a wordmark may be registered, making it a protected intellectual property." how can a protected intellectual property be public domain? The public domain article literally says "Works in the public domain are those whose intellectual property rights have expired, have been forfeited, or are inapplicable." --82.136.210.153 (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Although this comment is 9 years old, of course the trademarked logos of companies are not public domain. That said, those examples are now gone because they were logos, not wordmarks. RoyLeban (talk) 11:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public domain 

message: According to the article, the IBM logo is not a wordmark.  Have I got that correct? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 17:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: In the US, according to the USPTO, all of the "lettermark" examples are word marks. There is no legal definition of "lettermark", and a word mark need not be an actual word, or pronounced as a word, to exist. I think the term "lettermark" may be quasi-made up, an informal way to refer to a word mark which is pronounced as the letters rather than like a word. RoyLeban (talk) 11:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  IBM a lettermark? 

message: The content of this article is short - could easily be put as a section inside the Logo article. 
The 'Logo' article mentions 'logotypes' (with 'wordmark' in brackets) in its section on 'Logo design' and also links to this 'Wordmark' article in the opening paragraph of the article. It would make sense for the information to be self-contained within the 'Logo' article rather than it referencing this other article, as they are simply a kind of logo.
The 'Wordmark vs. Lettermark' section makes a distinction between wordmarks and lettermarks. There is no 'Lettermark' article - and, if one were added, it would likely be similarly short. As they are so similar, it would make sense to have a single section that describes both. It can be mentioned as a relatively minor note that they are called wordmarks when the text is a full name and they are called lettermarks when the text is an initalism.
This article has a link to Brandmark which is redirected to the 'Logo' article. I suggest Wordmark and Lettermark should redirect to the 'Logo' article also.
- J N Cressey (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting suggestion. I also noticed that the first sentence of the article says "A wordmark, word mark, or logotype, is [...]", while "logotype" redirects to logo (different article). -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

text: FWIW, wordmarks are not logos, so this article should not be merged into Logo. An argument could be made to merge it into the Trademark page. I don't currently have an opinion on that. RoyLeban (talk) 06:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion: Merge this into the 'Logo' article 

message: The article says a wordmark is (usually) text-only but then uses Microsoft and Canada logos as examples of wordmarks, both of which contain graphical elements that aren't incorporated in the text. Even if one might argue the definition of a wordmark is loose, shouldn't the article be using more typical examples like Coca Cola, Google, and Sony, whose logos contain only text? CrocodilesAreForWimps (talk) 02:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Microsoft/Canada logos as examples of wordmarks 

message: Is Text logo name variation for "wordmark", "word mark" and "logotype"? It has the same meaning? Eurohunter (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't understand what you're asking, this page is only for improvement for this specific article. FusionSub (talk) 08:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text logo? 

message: I did some work to improve the article. Although I put in information that I know to be true, it desperately needs citations and the last two paragraphs are basically wrong (a wordmark, by definition, is not a type of logo). I ran out of time to improve them and I also didn't want to make too many changes at once. 
I don't think a "wordmark logo" is really a thing. USPTO doesn't think it is. Yeah, you can find lots of blogs that use the term, but I couldn't find a RS that defined it. I think a more accurate term is "word logo" or maybe "trademarked word logo".
Pretty sure the first two See Also references are not applicable, and the third one is also suspect. Better references would be books on naming, not logos or branding.
Caveat: I know a lot about logos, trademarks, etc., in the US but I don't know as much about them internationally. RoyLeban (talk) 11:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning this up 

message: I have marked two things as dubious: wordmark logo and lettermark [logo]. I can't find a WP:RS for either. The first, "wordmark logo", is a contradiction. A wordmark is not a logo; a logo is not a wordmark. The second, "lettermark" could be a term but I've never seen it and I can't find a reliable soruce. As such, I think the paragraph referencing both should be removed. I'll leave this here for a while (at least a week, probably more given that this is not an oft-visited page) to see if anybody comes along to provide evidence. ~~~ RoyLeban (talk) 05:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: I removed two books from "Further Reading" because they are about graphic design, not branding, trademarks, or wordmarks. These books might be appropriate for the Logo page.
* McWade, John. Before and After Graphics for Business. Peachpit Press: 2005. .
* White, Alexander W. The Elements of Graphic Design: Space, Unity, Page Architecture, and Type. Allworth: 2002. .
RoyLeban (talk) 06:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Books removed from "Further Reading"