The annual arenas are held twice a year, but not all...

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #230:

1. Why do you assume that for a symbol or name to be a brand it must be registered as a trademark or explicitly labeled as such? I’ve already explained that this is not required. By your logic, if something isn’t registered or formally announced, it cannot be a brand. That stance conflicts with standard usage in branding and, in some jurisdictions, with trademark practice. It also ignores the concept of an “unregistered trademark,” which does exist and is recognized in legal practice (details vary by jurisdiction).

2. Whether the Lichess creators themselves publicly call these tournament names “brands” is not decisive here, because the names meet the criteria of brands.

Whether Lichess would choose to enforce these names legally is a separate question and not determinative of whether the names are brands. Even if Lichess explicitly stated that it does not consider the tournament names to be brands, they would still be brands by definition. Such a statement would mainly affect legal strategy and could complicate enforcement, but it would not change the fact that the names are brands.

Well, if the names of the arenas are brands, then where is the actual mistake in the name, which you were convinced of from the very beginning?
After all, this is no longer a name, but a brand.
No one will say that Apple is misleading by selling computer equipment under this brand.
Since deception is impossible here, since when you buy a phone, you understand for sure that this is not a fruit

@Italiya said in #231:

Well, if the names of the arenas are brands, then where is the actual mistake in the name, which you were convinced of from the very beginning?
After all, this is no longer a name, but a brand.
No one will say that Apple is misleading by selling computer equipment under this brand.
Since deception is impossible here, since when you buy a phone, you understand for sure that this is not a fruit
I didn’t say it was deception from the start. I talked about an inductive error, as branded names can contain such errors and/or be misleading. You’re confusing formal truth with categorical classification.

You yourself talked about analyzing names in isolation, just like with Apple: if you consider the brand and logo out of the context of technology, a person might think it’s something related to fruit or food if they’re unfamiliar with the company’s products. That is, misleading is indeed possible.

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #232:

I didn’t say it was deception from the start. I talked about an inductive error, as branded names can contain such errors and/or be misleading. You’re confusing formal truth with categorical classification.

You yourself talked about analyzing names in isolation, just like with Apple: if you consider the brand and logo out of the context of technology, a person might think it’s something related to fruit or food if they’re unfamiliar with the company’s products. That is, misleading is indeed possible.

In the case of Apple, misleading is impossible, since a person will already understand what kind of product it is at the stage of choosing a product. Unlike the name of the arena, which simply indicates what kind of tournament is being played.

@Italiya said in #233:

In the case of Apple, misleading is impossible, since a person will already understand what kind of product it is at the stage of choosing a product. Unlike the name of the arena, which simply indicates what kind of tournament is being played.
It can be misleading in certain contexts — for example, if someone compiles a list of food industry company logos and unknowingly includes Apple, assuming the company is related to food because of the word.

But in any case, Apple was only one illustration among others. This is not discussion about Apple. If you don’t like that example, you can take another — the point remains the same. There’s no need to sidetrack the discussion.

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #234:

It can be misleading in certain contexts — for example, if someone compiles a list of food industry company logos and unknowingly includes Apple, assuming the company is related to food because of the word.

But in any case, Apple was only one illustration among others. This is not discussion about Apple. If you don’t like that example, you can take another — the point remains the same. There’s no need to sidetrack the discussion.

So the problem is that your examples don't work the way the arena name does.
Now if I bought Apple products and realized that instead of an apple they sold me a phone, that would make me a victim of manipulation and deception.
But in a tournament I can play and not suspect anything, and only find out later.

@Italiya said in #235:

So the problem is that your examples don't work the way the arena name does.
Now if I bought Apple products and realized that instead of an apple they sold me a phone, that would make me a victim of manipulation and deception.
But in a tournament I can play and not suspect anything, and only find out later.
A person might see the name "Apple Store" and think apples are sold there if they are not familiar with the brand. So misleading is indeed possible. You asked for examples that can mislead, and I provided them. If you find "Apple" debatable, you can take the example of the "World Cup of Clubs," where the name suggests the whole world participates, but upon checking, it turns out not to be the case.

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #236:

<A person might see the name "Apple Store" and think apples are sold there if they are not familiar with the brand. So misleading is indeed possible.>

And what has changed? As before, at the stage of choosing a product, a person will understand that these are not apples.

So this example is not controversial, but absolutely inappropriate.

@Italiya said in #237:

And what has changed? As before, at the stage of choosing a product, a person will understand that these are not apples.
What has changed is that at a certain moment in time, under given conditions and without additional data, the brand can be misleading. The fact that at another moment, when new information appears, the misunderstanding disappears, does not change the fact that it can arise in some situations. The same way as after learning the history of tournaments, the name of the tournament is no longer misleading for the person who has obtained the new information. In other words, you asked for examples of brands that can be misleading, and this brand fits the requested conditions.

You are diverting the discussion. This is not about Apple.

I could go deeper into this topic and, using logical formalization, eventually prove (after spending some time) that Apple can be misleading. But whether this particular brand is misleading or not does not affect the validity of the argument in which this example was used. For the argument to be valid, it is enough to have at least one valid example. So instead of arguing about Apple, it is simpler and more correct, from the standpoint of my reasoning, to pay attention to other examples.

Alright, if you want to go down this rabbit hole, let’s go.

You are trying to prove the following thesis:
Brands, by definition, cannot be misleading.

My line of defense consists of two parts:

1. Providing examples of brands that can be misleading (this argument was suggested by you as a way to test the claim).
2. Requiring you to show in the definition of the concept of a brand that it cannot be misleading due to inductive errors or other reasons.

To prove that I am wrong and that brands, by definition, cannot be misleading, you must refute both parts. If you refute the first but not the second, your thesis that brands cannot be misleading by definition is still unproven. If you refute the second but not the first, then a contradiction arises: such brands cannot exist, yet they do.

How to refute the first argument:
You must prove that none of the provided examples can be misleading.

How to refute the second argument:
You must provide a generally accepted definition of a brand where it is explicitly stated that it cannot be misleading due to inductive errors or other reasons.
But I can already say this is impossible, since nothing of the kind is included in the definition of the concept.

Now let’s examine the first argument to see whether you have refuted it or not. Here is the list of examples — as long as at least one is valid, the argument stands:
[ +- ] Apple (still being debated)
[ + ] Orange
[ + ] Dove
[ + ] Arsenal
[ + ] Real Madrid
[ + ] New England Patriots
[ + ] Los Angeles Lakers
[ + ] World Series
[ + ] World Cup of Clubs
[ + ] World Champions
[ + ] World Club Challenge
[ + ] World Grand Prix

Until every example is marked with a minus (proven not valid), the argument remains correct. Instead of debating Apple, I can simply switch to the “World Cup of Clubs,” which I already did. Or I could choose any other example with [ + ].

Now regarding the second argument:
You have not refuted it in any way, which shows that by definition, brands can indeed be misleading due to inductive errors or other reasons.

Conclusion:
According to the definition of a brand, nothing prevents it from being misleading due to inductive errors or other reasons.

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #238:

I'm not taking the discussion away because you're still trying to prove that Apple is a good example.

I'll explain for the third time. At the selection stage, it becomes clear what is being sold under this brand. You don't need to study the history of the company to do this. This is the difference between a real "brand" and just a name.

So you still haven't proven the validity of this example. There's no point in moving on to the next ones.

@Italiya said in #239:

I'm not taking the discussion away because you're still trying to prove that Apple is a good example.
You are diverting the discussion, because we were not talking about Apple specifically, but about whether a branded name can be misleading or not. And for this you need to refute the two arguments I outlined above.

@Italiya said in #239:

I'll explain for the third time. At the selection stage, it becomes clear what is being sold under this brand. You don't need to study the history of the company to do this. This is the difference between a real "brand" and just a name.
And for the third time, I explain: the fact that at the moment of product selection the misunderstanding disappears with new information (just like it disappears when one learns the history of a tournament) does not cancel the fact that it can arise before a person encounters this new information. That is, the name can be misleading if someone is unfamiliar with the brand, which fits the very conditions you yourself set.
Misleading means creating a false or distorted impression in a person or group, leading to wrong actions or decisions. The name Apple can indeed lead to wrong actions if someone thought apples were being sold, but in fact it was electronics. That person might have wanted to buy fruit, but instead wasted time visiting a store they didn’t need.
So what you said does not refute what I said.

The concept of a "brand" has clear criteria. And the names of official tournaments on Lichess do fall under the definition of a brand. “Real” brands are simply those that meet the definition of a brand.

@Italiya said in #239:

So you still haven't proven the validity of this example. There's no point in moving on to the next ones.
And you haven’t disproven the validity of the “World Series” example. I don’t even need to prove the validity of the Apple case (though I already have), because to refute you it’s enough that at least one example works, not necessarily this one. Why should I spend time defending a more debatable example when I can demonstrate the validity of a less debatable one? Just so you can more easily divert the discussion? I’m not going to play along.

Explain to me: how exactly does the (in)validity of the Apple example disprove the validity of other examples, particularly the “World Series”? And how does it disprove my second argument?

Until you disprove the validity of the less debatable “World Series” example, there is no point in arguing about Apple.

So unless you can show that World Series is not misleading, your argument remains unproven. The validity of Apple as an example does not invalidate the others, and focusing on Apple only diverts the discussion.