Trademark strategy is an early focus of the world’s top disruptors

This article was first published in World Trademark Review on July 3, 2020.

Didi and Coupang have largest portfolios while Airbnb has the greatest geographic scope. On average it took just under two years for disruptors to file their first marks. Analysis reveals the top 50 are fast acting when it comes to IP protection. 

CNBC has just released its eighth annual Disruptor 50 list, which identifies the private companies “whose breakthroughs are influencing business and market competition at an accelerated pace.” The start-ups on the list are mainly tech heavyweights with strong financial backing, and 36 of the disruptors are at – or have surpassed – the $1 billion valuation mark.

Given that these are the start-ups with some of the greatest promise, it is worth exploring how intellectual property has factored into their growing businesses. Positively, our analysis shows that disruptors have not only been quick to protect their intangibles, they have also developed fairly robust trademark portfolios in the relatively small amount of time that they have been active.

A total of 50 companies were considered for this analysis, 42 of which are headquartered in North America (the United States accounting for 40 of these), with seven in the Middle East and Asia, and one in Europe (based in Sweden). The start-ups, on average, are about eight years of age, with the oldest founded in 2005 and the youngest in 2016 (see table below; companies are listed as they are ranked by CNBC).

 

 

Company Launched Country/region Trademarks Registers First Top register and number of marks
Stripe 2010 U.S. (CA) 198 63 2011 U.S. 18
Coupang 2010 South Korea 2,409 25 2010 South Korea 1,951
Indigo Agriculture 2014 U.S. 496 21 2016 Brazil 73
Coursera 2012 U.S. (CA) 82 20 2012 Mexico/Brazil/China 12
Klarna 2005 Sweden 66 15 2019 EUIPO 19
Tempus 2015 U.S. 23 4 2015 U.S. 14
Zipline 2014 U.S. (CA) 5 2 2015 U.S. 4
SoFi 2011 U.S. (CA) 56 3 2012 U.S. 53
Neteera 2015 Israel 4 2 2018 Israel/WIPO 2
Gojek 2010 Indonesia 688 6 2011 Indonesia 628
WeLab 2013 Hong Kong 111 5 2013 Indonesia 49
DoorDash 2013 U.S. (CA) 106 12 2014 U.S. 46
Heal 2014 U.S. (CA) 5 1 2014 U.S. 5
Movandi 2016 U.S. (CA) 1 1 2016 U.S. 1
Better.com 2016 U.S. 9 1 2017 U.S. 9
Grab 2012 Singapore 467 13 2014 Malaysia 128
Lemonade 2015 U.S. 38 9 2015 Argentina/Brazil 9
Root Insurance 2015 U.S. 4 2 2017 U.S./Canada 2
Healthy.io 2013 Israel 24 5 2018 EUIPO 7
GoodRx 2011 U.S. (CA) 13 1 2011 U.S. 13
Eat JUST 2011 U.S. (CA) 31 6 2012 U.S. 15
goPuff 2013 U.S. 14 3 2013 U.S. 11
Affirm 2012 U.S. (CA) 15 6 2013 U.S. 11
Kabbage 2009 U.S. 75 3 2009 U.S. 70
Chime 2013 U.S. (CA) 3 1 2014 U.S. 3
Dave 2016 U.S. (CA) 12 1 2017 U.S. 12
Trulioo 2011 Canada 8 2 2014 U.S. 5
Ripple 2012 U.S. (CA) 290 40 2012 China 50
TALA 2011 U.S. (CA) 19 6 2015 U.S./India/Kenya 4
Didi Chuxing 2012 China 6,128 66 2011 China 5,658
SentinelOne 2013 U.S. (CA) 25 8 2014 U.S. 6
Butterfly Network 2011 U.S. 54 9 2015 U.S. 18
Marqeta 2010 U.S. (CA) 10 4 2015 U.S. 4
Apeel 2012 U.S. (CA) 81 11 2014 U.S. 23
K Health 2016 U.S. 7 4 2019 U.S. 3
Databricks 2013 U.S. (CA) 23 18 2013 U.S. 3
C3.ai 2009 U.S. (CA) 61 7 2010 U.S. 37
Attabotics 2016 Canada 27 7 2017 India 9
CLEAR 2010 U.S. 17 2 2005 U.S. 3
Snowflake 2012 U.S. (CA) 61 10 2014 U.S. 18
Airbnb 2008 U.S. (CA) 994 102 2010 China 263
Duolingo 2011 U.S. 41 18 2014 US 10
LanzaTech 2005 US 46 6 2011 US 24
Ginkgo Bioworks 2009 US 31 3 2011 US 15
Guild Education 2015 U.S. 2 1 2020 U.S. 2
Robinhood 2013 U.S. (CA) 41 8 2014 U.S. 27
Convoy 2015 U.S.
Beautycounter 2011 U.S. (CA) 207 26 2012 U.S. 48
Impossible Foods 2011 U.S. (CA) 240 32 2013 U.S. 32
UiPath 2005 U.S. 176 17 2016 UAE 25

Source: CompuMark

Note: “First” in the sixth column refers to the year of first trademark filing. “(CA)” stands for California-based. Better.com owns an additional 20 U.S. state trademark registrations. goPuff owns an additional four U.S. state trademark registrations. Airbnb owns an additional 16 U.S. state trademark applications.

 

The first thing that stands out is the sheer number of businesses that have sought trademark protection. Convoy, a Seattle-based trucking software company, is the only one without a registered mark. According to CompuMark™ director of custom and managed solutions Robert Reading, the start-up had applied for a U.S. application for the term ‘Convoy’ in 2015 but it was opposed and ultimately abandoned.

Looking at the top 50 data set as a whole shows that the average portfolio has 276 trademarks. However, this number is skewed by a small number of companies filing large volumes of marks (see graph below). Excluding Didi and Coupang gives an average of 106.5 trademarks per entity. The average portfolio size for disruptors located in the United States is 89 trademarks.

It is worth noting that a vast majority of the two outliers’ portfolios are protected in their home jurisdictions. Of Didi’s 6,128 trademarks, 5,658 are filed in China, while 1,951 of Coupang’s 2,409 are filed in South Korea. The latter, which has been dubbed the Amazon of South Korea, interestingly owns trademarks for COUPANG ONE CLICK and COUPANG PRIME, says Reading.

 


Source: CompuMark

 

Aside from taking the time to lay down the foundations of their trademark portfolios, this year’s disruptors are also shown to be cognizant of obtaining far-reaching geographic protections. On average, the top 50 have filed trademarks in 13 registers. Airbnb has the most diverse portfolio, which is not surprising given its international operations (see graph below). Rounding out the top three are Didi and Stripe, which filed marks in 66 and 63 registers, respectively. It is worth noting that applications filed via the Madrid Protocol are counted as one register.

 


Source: CompuMark

 

The United States was the top register for 34 of the 49 start-ups studied. Typically, companies sought the most protection in their home countries, but that was not always the case. Two Canadian companies, Attabotics and Trulioo, filed most of their marks in India and the United States, with nine and five applications, respectively. Klarna, a fintech company based in Sweden and the only European company to feature in the list, has filed most of its marks at the EUIPO. Meanwhile, of the two Israeli companies to make the list, Healthy.io has filed most of its trademarks at the EUIPO, and Neteera’s filings are tied between its home jurisdiction and WIPO.

A significant number of the disruptors sought to protect their brands and trademarks in the very early stages of their business. Exactly 70% applied for trademark protection sometime between the year of launching and their second year in the market (see graph below). Two start-ups, Didi and CLEAR, filed their first marks before their businesses were properly founded (Didi’s in 2011 and CLEAR in 2005). On average, the companies studied took just under two years to file their first trademarks after launching.

 


Source: CompuMark

 

Of course, trademarks are not the only intangible that needs protecting, especially given that these disruptors are heavily tech-focused. Analysts from Derwent repeated the initial analysis to gain an understanding of the depth and breadth of the start-ups’ patent portfolios (see table below). A total of 36 of the top 50 owned at least one patent, and the average size of these portfolios amounted to 163.5 patents. It took about 2.3 years after launching for these businesses to file their first patents, which is just slightly more time than it took for the first trademarks to be filed.

Curiously, almost half of the companies in this data set applied for a trademark before filing for their first patent. The expectation, explains Reading, is that we would see patents filed first, then a trademark a few years later, which would fall in line with the R&D process of idea to development, then product/service being launched. On average, though, these disruptors filed trademarks a few months before the first patent. Overall, 16 businesses filed a trademark before their first patent, and seven lodged their first trademark and patent applications in the same year.

 

Company Launched Trademark portfolio  First trademark filing Patent portfolio First patent filing
Stripe 2010 198 2011 42 2010
Coupang 2010 2,409 2010 187 2014
Indigo Agriculture 2014 496 2016 230 2013
Coursera 2012 82 2012 52 2013
Klarna 2005 66 2019 22 2012
Tempus 2015 23 2015 17 2018
Zipline 2014 5 2015 31 2015
SoFi 2011 56 2012
Neteera 2015 4 2018 17 2015
Gojek 2010 688 2011 2 2018
WeLab 2013 111 2013
DoorDash 2013 106 2014 35 2014
Heal 2014 5 2014
Movandi 2016 1 2016 100 2016
Better.com 2016 9 2017
Grab 2012 467 2014 43 2015
Lemonade 2015 38 2015
Root Insurance 2015 4 2017
Healthy.io 2013 24 2018 17 2014
GoodRx 2011 13 2011 10 2013
Eat JUST 2011 31 2012
goPuff 2013 14 2013
Affirm 2012 15 2013 1 2013
Kabbage 2009 75 2009 9 2012
Chime 2013 3 2014
Dave 2016 12 2017
Trulioo 2011 8 2014 7 2014
Ripple 2012 290 2012 25 2015
TALA 2011 19 2015
Didi Chuxing 2012 6,128 2011 2,022 2014
SentinelOne 2013 25 2014 28 2014
Butterfly Network 2011 54 2015 730 2011
Marqeta 2010 10 2015 13 2011
Apeel 2012 81 2014 97 2013
K Health 2016 7 2019 2 2018
Databricks 2013 23 2013 25 2014
C3.ai 2009 61 2010 62 2010
Attabotics 2016 27 2017 17 2015
CLEAR 2010 17 2005 76 2011
Snowflake 2012 61 2014 222 2011
Airbnb 2008 994 2010 213 2012
Duolingo 2011 41 2014 3 2015
LanzaTech 2005 46 2011 1,017 2010
Ginkgo Bioworks 2009 31 2011 255 2010
Guild Education 2015 2 2020
Robinhood 2013 41 2014
Convoy 2015
Beautycounter 2011 207 2012 5 2017
Impossible Foods 2011 240 2013 251 2011
UiPath 2005 176 2016 3 2019

Source: CompuMark and Derwent, Clarivate solutions

 

This year’s disruptors are expected to have a bold impact on the market, and with such strong innovative potential it is promising to see that these brands have put in the time and money to build up their IP protections. Nearly all 50 start-ups have laid the groundwork for their trademark portfolios, and 36 the foundations for their patent holdings. The lower number of businesses seeking patent protection is not entirely surprising, as our sister platform IAM has previously reported on the small percentage of tech start-ups that take the time to develop patent portfolios of significant depth.

What is remarkable about this data is that it shows that the disruptors are not following the usual patent/trademark filing process as pointed out by Reading. Instead, most were extremely quick to secure both trademark and patent protections. It may be the nature of these businesses to be fast acting and flexible, but their filing approaches are nonetheless a positive reflection of how strong-performing start-ups feel about intellectual property.

WTR

 

Bridget Diakun
Author | Data reporter
bridget.diakun@lbresearch.com