When U.S. law applies, trademark lawyers urge companies to find "suggestive" names — requiring insight to realize "ah, that's what this is!" — as the "sweet spot" to get the most bang for the buck in marketing while still being legally-protectable. (Examples: Coppertone for suntan lotion; Greyhound for bus-transportation services; Energizer for batteries.)
"Merely descriptive" marks can't be protected legally without proof that they've acquired "secondary meaning," e.g., through widespread advertising, going viral, etc.
"Coined" or "fanciful" marks such as Reebok and Kodak, and "arbitrary" marks such as Lotus for software, are protectable, but they don't do much good in advertising, at least not initially, because customers don't know what product or service is.
"Merely descriptive" marks can't be protected legally without proof that they've acquired "secondary meaning," e.g., through widespread advertising, going viral, etc.
"Coined" or "fanciful" marks such as Reebok and Kodak, and "arbitrary" marks such as Lotus for software, are protectable, but they don't do much good in advertising, at least not initially, because customers don't know what product or service is.
Self-cite: https://www.oncontracts.com/startup-law/#Trademarks_look_for...
Usual disclaimer: I'm a lawyer but not your lawyer.