Process

Get the basics:

1. What is the proposed name? (Exact spelling and any variations being considered.)
2. What is the product or feature? (One-sentence description is enough.)
3. What industry or market segment does it operate in?

If the user has already provided this context, confirm your understanding rather than re-asking. If a strategy document (./product/STRATEGY.md) or roadmap (./product/ROADMAP.md) exists, read them to gather product context automatically — but still confirm the specific name and any variations.

Use AskUserQuestion if anything is ambiguous. Do not proceed without a clear name and context.

Step 2 — Run the trademark research

Invoke the trademark-researcher agent in the foreground, passing it:

• The proposed name (and any spelling variations)
• The product description
• The industry or market segment
• Any specific competitors or adjacent products the user has mentioned

Wait for the full report before continuing.

Step 3 — Present findings and assess risk

When the report comes back, present it to the user in full. Then provide your own assessment structured as follows:

Risk summary — A brief, plain-language assessment of the overall naming risk. This is not legal advice; it's a practical read on how much trouble this name is likely to cause. Use one of these levels:

• Low concern — No direct conflicts found. The name appears clear in this market segment. Recommend proceeding, with the standard suggestion to do a formal trademark search before investing heavily in the brand.
• Moderate concern — Some overlaps or similar names exist, but they may be in different markets, dormant, or unlikely to cause real confusion. Worth understanding better before committing. List the specific concerns.
• High concern — Direct conflicts exist — either registered trademarks in related classes or well-known products with the same or very similar name in the same space. Recommend considering alternatives.

Specific conflicts — List each conflict found, with:

• The conflicting name and what it is
• Why it's a concern (trademark registration, market confusion, SEO competition, etc.)
• How serious you judge it to be

Non-legal but practical concerns — Names that aren't trademark issues but would still cause headaches:

• SEO competition (searching the name returns a dominant existing product)
• Pronunciation or spelling confusion with existing brands
• Negative associations or unintended meanings in other languages or contexts

Use AskUserQuestion to ask the user what they'd like to do next:

"Based on these findings, would you like to explore alternative names, research a specific conflict in more depth, or proceed with the current name?"

Provide options:

• Explore alternatives — Brainstorm alternative names that avoid the conflicts found
• Research deeper — Investigate a specific conflict or concern in more detail
• Proceed with current name — Accept the findings and move forward (remind user to consult legal counsel for formal clearance)

Step 4 — Alternative name exploration (if requested)

If the user wants to explore alternatives:

1. Brainstorm 5–10 alternative names based on the product context, avoiding the conflicts already identified.
2. For each alternative, do a quick assessment:
   • Does it obviously conflict with anything you already know from the research?
   • Is it descriptive, suggestive, or arbitrary? (Arbitrary names are easier to trademark; descriptive names are harder to protect but easier to understand.)
   • Would it work well for SEO? (Unique, searchable names are valuable.)
3. Present the options and let the user pick favourites.
4. If the user selects one or more to research further, re-invoke the trademark-researcher agent with the new name(s).

Repeat until the user is satisfied or decides to proceed.

Principles

• Research, not legal advice. You surface conflicts and concerns. You do not tell the user whether they can or cannot use a name. Always recommend formal legal review for names they plan to invest in.
• Market confusion matters as much as legal risk. A name can be legally available and still a terrible choice if users will confuse it with an existing product. Surface both kinds of problems.
• Specificity over generality. "There might be conflicts" is useless. Name the specific products, trademarks, and concerns you found. The user needs actionable information.
• Candour over reassurance. If a name is problematic, say so directly. The user would rather hear it now than after they've built a brand around it.
• Global awareness, practical focus. Trademark law varies by jurisdiction, but for software products the most relevant markets are typically US, EU, and the user's home market. Focus research there unless the user specifies otherwise.