A one-letter tweak may still be too close
Many founders do the same quick calculation. They find an earlier brand name, change one letter, swap an ending, and assume the risk is now manageable.
That shortcut can fail.
In Sweden, PMÖD 2025:9 is a useful reminder. The Patent and Market Court of Appeal held that DOGGY had acquired distinctiveness for pet food, and that use of DOGGIE for related sales infringed. In plain English: the earlier name (DOGGY) had become strong enough through market use, and the later spelling tweak (DOGGIE) was not enough to avoid conflict.
You can read the published decision here and the attached judgment PDF here.
The business lesson is straightforward: if your naming strategy depends on having to explain that your version is spelled slightly differently, you may already have a problem.
This matters because naming mistakes are expensive late in the process
A trademark issue caught early is usually a manageable naming decision. The same issue caught after launch can mean packaging changes, domain changes, ad account disruption, retailer questions, investor friction, and a rebrand you did not budget for.
That is why near-neighbour names deserve more attention than founders often give them. The real cost is rarely the legal letter itself. The real cost is momentum lost after a name has already been rolled into product, marketing, and sales.
Sweden is also part of a largely first-to-file environment. Registration matters, and earlier rights can block later users even if the later brand has already started trading. If you want a broader refresher on how ownership rules differ across markets, see our article on first-to-file and first-to-use systems.
A name that looks ordinary can become protectable through use
The most useful part of the DOGGY/DOGGIE case is not just that the names were close. It is that founders often underestimate older brands that seem ordinary, descriptive, or familiar.
A word does not always need to start out highly original to become enforceable. If customers over time learn to associate that name with one business, the name can gain legal strength. Lawyers call this acquired distinctiveness.
Translated into business language, acquired distinctiveness means this: the market has learned that the name points to a specific commercial source, not just to a product category or a general idea.
That matters because a founder may look at an older name and think, “That sounds generic, so we can probably work around it.” The court’s message in cases like this is more cautious. Long use, strong recognition, and a solid market presence can make an older mark much harder to get around than it appears at first glance.
A practical rule of thumb: if the existing brand has been visible for years, sold widely, and is well known in its niche, do not assume it is weak just because the word sounds familiar.
Small spelling changes often do not change what customers perceive
Trademark risk is not only about whether two names are identical on paper. Courts also look at how the names are likely to be perceived in real commercial life.
That usually includes questions like these:
Do the names look similar?
Do they sound similar when spoken aloud?
Do they create a similar overall impression?
Are the goods or services close enough that customers may think they come from the same business or connected businesses?
That is why changing Y to IE, dropping a letter, or using a slightly different ending often does less than founders hope.
Imagine a pet brand team saying: “We are not using DOGGY. We are using DOGGIE.” Internally, that may feel like a meaningful distinction. In the market, it may feel like the same name with a small spelling variation.
This becomes even more risky when the products, channels, or customers overlap. Pet food, pet accessories, online pet retail, and related services sit close together commercially. The closer the commercial setting, the less help a minor spelling change usually gives you.
Ask yourself one blunt question: if a customer heard both names once in a busy conversation, would they notice the legal difference you are relying on?
If the answer is no, your clearance analysis should get more serious.
What Swedish founders should take from PMÖD 2025:9
The case points to a few practical lessons that apply well beyond pet products.
Do not rely on surface-level differences. A small tweak can still leave the overall commercial impression too close to an earlier brand.
Check whether the older mark may have grown stronger over time. Even if a word once looked weak, years of use can change the analysis.
Look at the full market context. Similar names become more dangerous when used for related products, overlapping customer groups, or adjacent sales channels.
Be careful with names that need explaining. If your internal defence starts with “Yes, but ours is spelled differently,” that is not a strong business position.
Clear before rollout, not after traction. The later the issue appears, the more expensive it usually becomes.
This is also why trademark work is not just a registry exercise. A clean register result does not always mean low risk, and a familiar-looking word is not always safe to route around.
Use this checklist before approving a lookalike brand name
If your preferred name sits close to an existing one, stress-test it with questions like these before design, packaging, domains, and paid media are locked in:
Is the difference only one letter, one ending, or one phonetic variation?
Would the names sound similar in Swedish or English when said aloud?
Will the brands be sold to the same buyers or through the same channels?
Could the earlier brand be well known in its segment, even if the word itself feels ordinary?
Are you entering a category where consumers make quick decisions and do not study spelling carefully?
Would a retailer, distributor, or marketplace team assume a connection between the two names?
Will your enforcement position later be weakened because your own name was chosen close to someone else’s?
If you had to defend the name to investors or a board, would “we added a letter” sound commercially convincing?
If several answers point the wrong way, the safest commercial move is often to pick a name with more distance now rather than buying trouble later.
Search wider than Sweden before you get attached to the name
Founders often do a narrow search, find no exact match, and move on. That is rarely enough.
At a minimum, a name should usually be checked against relevant trademark databases and the markets you may enter next, not just the one you are selling in today.
Useful starting points include:
PRV for Swedish trademark information
TMview for multi-jurisdiction trademark searching
EUIPO eSearch for EU trademark records
That search step should also go beyond exact matches. Similar-sounding names, plural forms, spelling variants, and adjacent goods and services all matter.
For brand teams working across online channels, remember that trademark risk is not only about register conflicts. It can also affect search visibility, marketplace takedowns, ad approvals, and copycat control. We touched on that broader enforcement angle in our post on Lululemon’s “dupe” trademark strategy.
The practical takeaway is simple: choose distance, not excuses
DOGGY vs DOGGIE is a good founder case because the mistake is easy to imagine. A team sees an existing name, makes a tiny adjustment, and hopes that the difference will be enough.
Sometimes it is not.
The better approach is to look for names with real separation, not names that depend on technical arguments after the fact. That usually gives you a stronger filing path, a lower conflict risk, and a brand that is easier to defend as you grow.
If you are reviewing a shortlist and one option is only “different enough” on paper, that is usually the moment to pause and test it properly.
This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. If you are launching or expanding a brand in Sweden or across the EU, a targeted clearance review is often cheaper than a rebrand after launch. Abrande can help assess risk before the name becomes expensive.
