Follow Us on Google News
Follow Us on Google Discover
Abstract
A brand in the digital economy today is not merely a logo or a name, it is trust, reputation, and differentiation. Brand equity to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and start-ups is normally their most valued asset, propelling visibility, consumer loyalty, and competitive advantage. But the danger of brandjacking causes greater risk to such firms. Unlike large corporations that possess sophisticated legal and compliance teams, small start-ups and SMEs generally lack the resources to track and stay ahead of such threats effectively, and thus are exposed to it. Trademarks grant a right in law, offering exclusive rights for use and defending brand identifiers. Yet trademark protection falls short in a world where fraudulent behaviors can transcend country borders and spread rapidly on the Internet. It needs to be a multidimensional response that entails a convergence of legal protection, active online monitoring, and cautious brand management. This paper has addressed the trend of brandjacking in the modern Internet era, highlighting its significance to startups and SMEs. It was centered on the utilization of trademarks as a protection indicator, examines common tricks perpetuated by well-known culprits, and offers operational measures that firms can implement to prevent risks. In conclusion, brandjacking is a real threat to SMEs and start-ups, which undermines confidence, revenues, and future viability. Though trademarks provide a valuable safety net of legal protection, achieving an effective defense requires a combination of legal know-how, watchful eye, and good brand strategy. The article recommends that startups and SMEs ought to give utmost priority to early trademark registration, invest in online monitoring tools, and follow active brand protection strategies.
1.0 Introduction
In today’s hyper-connected, digital-first world, a firm’s brand has become its most valuable intangible asset. For startups and SMEs, brand equity usually represents the same competitive edge in thin financial, human, and operating capital spaces (Ameyibor et al., 2022). Unlike incumbents with fat pockets to defend and advance their identities, startups and SMEs need to rely significantly on trustworthiness, authenticity, and awareness to gain legitimacy with clients, investors, and business partners. Nevertheless, owing to this reliance, such organizations are increasingly vulnerable to brand-based threats among which the major concern is brandjacking (Briffa, 2019).
Brandjacking refers to the malicious exploitation or usage of a company’s brand, trademark, or web presence by culprits for their own personal benefits (du Plessis, 2018). These attacks may either involve counterfeiting products and registering misleading domain names, hijacking social media accounts, creating fake sites, or even propagating disinformation in the guise of an original brand. Always the objective is to mislead buyers, destroy reputations, or rob money. To startups and SMEs, where every sale and every positive image counts, these attacks may prove ruinous.
The era of the internet has accelerated the possibility and danger of branding (Steenkamp, 2020). On the positive side, digital platforms provide startups with the means to rapidly reach global audiences through e-commerce, social media, and search engine visibility. Conversely, the same platforms enable fraudsters and competitors to impersonate, exploit, or misuse a brand’s identity. There are counterfeits galore on online platforms, phishing emails impersonate reputed brands in order to cheat customers, cybersquatters acquire domain names sounding close to genuine companies in an attempt to confuse consumers or demand ransom (Sancheti, 2021). In such a situation, authenticity and imitative branding are often confusing for those with limited technical acumen or time.
Startups and SMEs are faced with a twin barrier. They must first invest astutely in the development of robust, differentiated brands that resonate with target consumers. They must secondly foresee and guard against external menaces that can dilute their brand capital, obfuscate stakeholders, or even lead to costly legal disputes (Briffa, 2019). Most start-ups overlook the importance of safeguarding their brands, believing either that they do not yet have the size to be targeted or that legal and online protection is the next best option. The reality, however, is cruel: intruders have a tendency to consider small businesses as easier targets precisely because they lack the resource or capacity to defend themselves (Bagwell, 2016).
Trademarks are amongst the strongest legal weapons used in the protection of brands (Bassiouny & Abdin, 2022).
A trademark not only gains monopoly rights of use for some brand identifiers such as slogans, names, or logos but also establishes a notarized document of ownership that can be enforced in markets and courts of justice. Trademarks are more than symbolically representative of their legal worth: they convey genuineness to consumers and notify competitors and nefarious actors alike that the brand is protected (Fishman, 2022). In an economy that exists on a virtual plane where visibility precedes trust, registered trademarks can deter potential infringers and provide assurance to consumers. But trademark law goes only so far in a world where online impersonation grows increasingly sophisticated. Brandjacking can be done on platforms beyond the jurisdiction of older legal systems, like anonymous social media posts or international counterfeit syndicates that operate across multiple jurisdictions (Siano et al., 2022). Thus, startups and SMEs require an overall strategy: one that encompasses legal defenses, vigilant monitoring, technological tools, and practices of managing the brand.
The seriousness of this issue is accentuated by the growing scale of online brand abuse. Piracy and counterfeiting alone were projected to cost EU businesses over €83 billion annually in 2016 (Anti-Counterfeiting Group, 2016). Similarly, cybersecurity firms indicate steady growth in phishing and domain squatting attacks on up-and-coming brands (Szurdi, 2020). For SMEs, these threats do not necessarily imply lost business, but also reputational damage, consumer trust loss, and regulatory penalties in sectors that require compliance. Through the examination of the nature of brandjacking, the role of trademarks, and the options at hand to fight for a brand, the paper seeks to equip business managers, entrepreneurs, and directors with the knowledge required to defend their intangible assets. While multinational corporations have in-house legal advisors, web monitor programs, and partnerships with the law to combat brand abuse, startups and small and medium enterprises (SMEs) must adopt sharper, affordable measures commensurate with their size and capability.
It is not an extravagance but a matter of survival to protect a brand (Ertekin et al., 2018). As the online environment becomes increasingly filled and competitive, the ability of a startup or SME to safeguard its brand identity can be what separates success, plates, or failure. The following sections will unravel the mystery of brandjacking, explore its effects on SMEs, elaborate on the trademark game, and provide handy tips on building strong brand protection systems in today’s digital environment. In a well-balanced business environment, companies build unique brand identities that others respect and consumers trust. Legal protection is offered by a registered trademark and ensures companies, such as startups and small businesses, can sell their products or services in confidence without fearing imitation (Fishman, 2022). In such a situation, consumers associate brands with excellence and authenticity, and companies focus all their energy on innovation and growth. In the real world, the majority of startups and SMEs are exposed to more comprehensive threats to their brand identity due to the digital age.
Cybercriminals and unscrupulous competitors exploit poor defenses using methods such as domain name exploitation, counterfeiting products, and social media impersonation. The majority of small businesses shun or delay trademark registration due to cost or lack of knowledge, putting them at risk (Block et al., 2015). Even when trademarks are acquired, enforcement in many online markets and jurisdictions is costly and complicated.
The impact is significant damage to SMEs and startups. Consumers who encounter counterfeit goods or fall prey to internet fraud can lose trust in the original brand (Kennedy, 2020). Companies can suffer losses in revenue, reputational loss, and costly court proceedings to reclaim their identity. For smaller businesses with limited resources, these impacts can stop growth, dilute competitiveness, and even threaten survival in the worst scenarios. This research will examine the phenomenon of brandjacking, how it affects startups and SMEs, and the role of trademarks in mitigating associated risks. It aims to provide useful tips, legal information, and strategic templates that allow small businesses to take the initiative of protecting their brands in the digital age.
2.0 Definition of Brandjacking in the Digital Age
Brandjacking, while not novel, has taken a concerning degree of popularity in the digital age. Brandjacking is the unauthorized appropriation of a genuine brand’s identity by malicious or opportunistic individuals with fraudulent purposes (Briffa, 2019). Unlike direct counterfeiting, where fake products mimic authentic items, brandjacking takes place in more expansive forms, tending to work on perception, trust, and visibility both online and offline. For startups and SMEs, lacking robust brand vigilance measures, brandjacking is more dangerous since its effects will not always be palpable until a lot of harm has already been done.
The consequences of brandjacking extend beyond immediate loss of funds. For startups and SMEs, whose business model is premised on credibility establishment, a single high-profile incident can destroy consumer trust indefinitely. Social media campaigns or bad reviews generated through fraudulent activity can become permanent online features, shaping popular sentiment long after the matter is resolved. Additionally, litigation in courts of law for the recovery of domains, removal of fake listings, or closure of impersonation accounts can drain limited financial resources (du Plessis, 2018).
Startups operate in emerging spaces of markets where differentiation is their strongest selling point (Choi et al., 2020). Malicious actors exploit such opportunities by striking first before the brand sets up intellectual property shields. SMEs might already possess reputations built but lack dedicated brand defense budgets and hence are a potential target for counterfeiters or impersonators who calculate that enforcement will be weak. Understanding the scope of brandjacking tactics is the first step towards effective protection. Understanding empowers SMEs to identify threats beforehand, know their vulnerabilities, and implement preventatives. Without this fundamental understanding, startups and SMEs will enter the digital market blindfolded, so to speak, leaving their most valuable asset, their brand, at risk (Briffa, 2019). Lastly, brandjacking is no longer a technical or legal issue; it has become an issue of survival for business. With the understanding of seriousness and direction of brand misuse, SMEs and startups can now begin reclaiming their online reputation and constructing defenses appropriate to their size and ability.
2.1 Brandjacking Types
Typosquatting and Cybersquatting: Scammers buy domain names that appear to be legit businesses but include slight misspellings or alternative extensions (.net versus .com) (Bhusari & Rampure, 2021). Scammers utilize these domains to dupe customers, as hosting for fake sites, or ransom from the original brand owner.
Social Media Impersonation: Mimic accounts that pretend to represent brands or management can spread disinformation, mislead customers, or destroy public confidence. For startups that are relying heavily on social media to gain visibility, impersonation can undo months of brand building in one night.
Parallel and Counterfeit Markets: Unauthorized vendors provide fake or unauthorized versions of products, generally via large internet marketplaces (El-Azzi, 2022). Apart from missed sales, unsuspecting customers of the pirated goods may associate poor-quality products with the original brand.
Email Spoofing and Phishing: Scammers employ malicious emails impersonating the brand, tricking victims into sharing confidential data or initiating fake payments (Alkhalil et al., 2021). Small and medium enterprises with weak cybersecurity practices are at the highest risk.
Manipulation of Search Engine and Ads: Competitors or spammers can bid on branded keywords in search ads, pushing potential customers away from the original brand’s sites.
3.0 Trademarks as a Defensive Shield
To entrepreneurs and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) who enter the digital space, trademarks are some of the best weapons at their disposal to defend their identity or brand. A trademark is more than a technical legalistic requirement; it is an indicator of ownership, reputation, and authenticity (Fishman, 2022). When a business applies for a trademark, it legally establishes its right to exclusive use of its brand identifiers such as names, logos, symbols, or slogans, in specific goods and service categories. This exclusive use is essential to firms that heavily depend on identification and consumer trust to grow in competitive markets.
The role of trademarks as a registered defensive instrument is twofold. Firstly, they provide legal foundation (Abdugopirovich, 2021). When the trademark of a brand is, its owner gains rights that may be enforced against unauthorized use in court or by regulatory authorities. This involves action against counterfeiters, cybersquatters, or businesses that try to purport their products as the trademark owner’s. Without registration, it is very difficult to enforce them, risking small businesses with exploitation (Mukhtar et al., 2018). Second, trademarks deter. The fact that a mark is registered deters competitors and ill-minded people that the brand is protected, discouraging abuse at first instance.
Trademarks also play an important role in virtual spaces. Online stores such as Amazon, eBay, and Alibaba, as well as social media websites, increasingly require proof of trademark registration before allowing businesses to report infringement or to request removal of infringing content (Sloane et al., 2019). For online-retailing SMEs, this means that in the absence of a registered trademark, it would be practically impossible to remove counterfeit listings or impersonation accounts. Search engines and Internet advertising sites also favor authenticated brands, again pointing towards commercial value for trademarks.
However, trademarks are not foolproof. Success depends on timely registration and persistent enforcement. Startups prefer to delay trademark filing, either on economic reasons or because they may not have anticipated the risks. Delays can prove to be expensive if someone else files for a similar mark ahead of time, which might block the original business from using its own brand name or force it to fight expensive law cases. Additionally, trademark protection overseas creates an additional challenge (Sáiz & Castro, 2018). A trademarked name in a country may not provide much protection worldwide, and infringers often act transnationally to exploit these loopholes.
Another shortcoming is the speed of cyber infringement. While legal remedy through trademarks is effective, it does take time, but cyber brandjacking strategies spread quickly and cause harm on an instant basis. This means that trademarks should not be utilized in isolation but as a part of an overall brand defense strategy. Startups and small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) must link trademark registration with online domains tracking, rapid response tactics, and coordination with digital spaces. Trademarks are still a pivot of brand defense (Fishman, 2022). They provide firms with the foundation on which they can assert ownership, defend against reputation damage, and counter misappropriation in formal actions. For small and medium-sized enterprises and startups, pre-investment in trademarks is not an optional expense but a strategic imperative. Through the acquisition of this legal recourse, small business can improve their ability to expand with confidence and reduce the risks of brandjacking in today’s online environment.
4.0 The Business Impact of Brandjacking on SMEs
The sanctions of brandjacking are particularly crippling for SMEs and startups, where brand value is often one of the most precious but delicate assets. Compared to large corporations with the ability to absorb reputational damage or incur significant expenditure on online and legal defense, smaller players have lean budgets with limited room for errors. Whenever their brand reputation gets sullied, the impact extends beyond tangible loss and reaches up to long-term survival, growth opportunities, and trustworthiness.
One of the most immediate impacts of brandjacking is loss of sales. Fakes sold posing as a legitimate brand have the potential to suck business away from the original enterprise (Mangalasserri et al., 2021). To SMEs with wafer-thin margins and each sale counting, such losses have the potential to destabilize business immediately. Above all, counterfeiters compromise original products by offering lower-priced versions, making the playing field uneven where genuine businesses have no hope to compete with spurious traders.
Just as devastating is consumer trust loss. Under the guise of unknowingly purchasing a counterfeit or imitated product, customers’ negative experiences, be it substandard product, slow shipment, or even total scams, are usually attributed to the actual brand. Word-of-mouth, social media protests, and online feedback can take a reputation down quickly despite the business not being involved. For a small business that depends on building a loyal customer base, a single wave of negative publicity can undo years of quality brand-building.
Brandjacking also brings legal and business-related issues (O’Connor, 2019). SMEs can find themselves embroiled in costly efforts to recover domain names, shut down impersonating social media accounts, or sue the counterfeiters. Not only are these efforts costly, but they also consume time, diverting resource and attention from fundamental business activity such as customer service and product development. Larger enterprises usually have in-house legal staff and cooperation with regulators to take care of these types of issues; SMEs may be compelled to rely on token external guidance, thus diluting enforcement.
The second significant impact is the barrier to growth and investment. Investors and potential partners place significant importance on strong, defendable brands. If a startup’s brand is degraded by wide-scale abuse, questions will be raised about the company’s ability to protect intellectual property. This can drop investor confidence, limit finance opportunities, and quiet expansion into new markets. Similarly, entry into overseas markets without a shielded and dignified brand name exposes SMEs to even greater vulnerability to infringement and loss of competitiveness.
The psychological weight of brandjacking on entrepreneurs and small business people does not often receive much consideration. To innovators who have invested time, effort, and money in building a brand, its unauthorized use or dilution by others can be extremely disheartening. The chronic stress of this sort can affect decision-making, morale, and the ability to focus on growth. In extreme cases, repeated brand abuse has forced companies to rebrand entirely, an exercise that is expensive, time-consuming, and perilous.
Overall, brandjacking affects SMEs far more than the short-term problem of imitation or fraud. It damages revenues, undermines trust, exposes the company to legal risks, destroys investor confidence, and threatens long-term viability. To small businesses, lost capacity to control their brand name can mean the difference between growing successfully or exploding prematurely. Alleviating these risks is therefore not merely a defensive necessity but also a competitive necessity for survival in the digital economy.
5.0 Hands-On Strategies for Brand Defense in the Age of the Internet
Though brandjacking threats are significant, SMEs and startups are not devoid of solutions. With a proper mix of legal protection, Internet surveillance, and business policies, small businesses can build strong barriers that protect their image and set the stage for long-term prosperity. Brand protection within the digital economy requires foresight, coherence, and an acceptance of investing money on apparatuses that will not bring profit in the short term but prevent much greater losses in the future (du Plessis, 2018).
The first and most important step is trademark registration. Entrepreneurs must register their brand name, logo, and most important identifiers as early as possible (Winata & Tan, 2022). This prevents others from registering similar marks and is the legal foundation for enforcement. For those businesses preparing to expand internationally, regional or international trademark regimes such as the Madrid Protocol are an option to consider because they allow a single application to cover jurisdictions. Registering trademarks initially is a comparatively cheap measure in contrast to the cost of litigation or the need to rebrand in the future.
Complementary to registration law, ongoing digital surveillance is required. Low-cost internet-based tools can be used by SMEs to track the web for brand abuse. These monitoring tools track domain name registrations, locate counterfeit products on marketplaces, and locate social media impersonation. While advanced monitoring services may seem pricey, most systems today include scalable solutions that fit within modest budgets. Even small steps such as the placement of Google Alerts for brand names or the regular scans of marketplace listings can catch problems early.
The second method is to establish online presence. By buying official domains on popular extensions and owning active, verified social media names, businesses restrict the margin of counterfeiters. Social media profiles on platforms such as Instagram, Facebook, and LinkedIn with verified identities not only increase trust but also simplify how clients can tell genuine from fake accounts. Consistent branding on platforms further strengthens authenticity in customers’ perceptions.
Collaboration with internet sites is also needed. Online retailers like Amazon and Alibaba, and social media, typically have trademark protection systems through which registered trademark owners may file complaints and send takedown demands against infringing content. SMEs should be informed about these mechanisms and make use of them as well. Prompt filing of complaints can halt the damage from accreting and serves to warn malicious parties that the brand is guarded. No less important is consumer education. Startups and SMEs may place guidelines on websites on how to verify true products or channels of communication. Clearly defined messaging avoids individuals from being victims of counterfeits and earns customer trust. For example, companies may place approved distributors, use watermarks on product images, or utilize secure payment channels that guarantee authenticity to customers.
Finally, SMEs need to incorporate protection of the brand within the overall strategy. This means investing some of the intellectual property protection, monitoring, and awareness campaign budget. This also encompasses an internal response plan to act quickly when infringements are identified, either through sending cease-and-desist letters, reporting to platforms, or proceeding to legal action when necessary. Therefore, brand protection in the age of information is not beyond the reach of SMEs and start-ups. By way of the harmony between legal protections like trademarks and online surveillance, consumer vigilance, and joint engagements with sites, small businesses can substantially reduce their susceptibility to brandjacking. Not only do such actions protect revenues and reputation, they also support trust and allegiance that constitute pillars of sustainable growth.
6.0 Conclusion and Recommendation
In today’s digital economy, brand identity has been the most valuable asset for both small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) and startups. Unlike mature corporations with significant financial portfolios and foreign legal offices, these companies rely on trust, authenticity, and consumer trust in order to create competitive advantage. That reliance makes them particularly vulnerable to brandjacking, where negative actors exploit brand identifiers for their advantage. The exposé has identified that brandjacking comes in multiple forms such as spurious products, cybersquatting, phishing operations, and social media impersonation, among others. They not only cause immediate financial loss but also long-term reputational loss, erode customer trust, and create legal and operating expenses. To SMEs, the effect is disproportionately prevalent. A single incident can destabilize business, drain limited resources, and even undermine investor confidence.
Trademarks provide a strong defensive position by providing exclusive rights of use and litigation over brand identifiers. They are both legal weapons against infringers and physical deterrents to potential abusers. Trademarks are not, however, the whole solution on their own. The speed and global extent of electronic brandjacking tactics generally outstrip normal enforcement devices. This reality emphasizes the need for SMEs to adopt comprehensive protection strategies that integrate legal protection with active monitoring and brand management practices.
Brand protection is not just a defensive strategy; it is an investment in the long term towards sustainability and expansion. Startups and SMEs that prioritize intellectual property protection, create strong digital presence, and connect with their customers will be able to survive competitive markets unscathed. Finally, the ability to protect a brand identity can break or make a small firm in the crowded online market. By addressing brandjacking ahead of time and deliberately, SMEs may safeguard their reputations, uphold customer trust, and create a foundation for sustainable expansion.
6.1 Recommendation
Startups and SMEs need to register trademarks early on, both locally and internationally wherever possible, to receive legal protection. They should complement this with low-cost digital watch-systems, genuine online accounts, and strong participation with e-commerce and social platforms. It is also important to inform customers about the genuine products and official channels. By integrating brand protection into the overall strategy, SMEs are well placed to reduce risks, increase confidence, and build sustainable brands that can cope with today’s highly dynamic digital environment.
References
Abdugopirovich, Y. A. (2021). Types of legal protection of a trademark (service mark) in foreign countries: the example of the Madrid System. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 12(4), 1068-1073.
Alkhalil, Z., Hewage, C., Nawaf, L., & Khan, I. (2021). Phishing attacks: A recent comprehensive study and a new anatomy. Frontiers in Computer Science, 3, 563060.
Ameyibor, L. E. K., Anabila, P., & Saini, Y. K. (2022). Brand positioning and business performance of alcoholic beverage firms in an emerging market context: the mediation effect of brand equity. International Journal of Wine Business Research, 34(1), 133-154.
Anti-Counterfeiting Group. (2016, December 5). EUR 83 billion and 790 000 jobs lost every year across the EU due to counterfeiting and piracy. ACG.
Bagwell, M. A. (2016). Organizational decisions about cyber security in small to mid-sized businesses: A qualitative study (Doctoral dissertation, Northcentral University).
Bassiouny, M., & Abdin, A. (2022). Protecting Well-known Trademarks: A Comparative Study. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 6(5).
Bhusari, R. V., & Rampure, K. R. (2021). Cybersquatting: A Threat to the Globalising World. Indian JL & Legal Rsch., 3, 1.
Block, J. H., Fisch, C. O., Hahn, A., & Sandner, P. G. (2015). Why do SMEs file trademarks? Insights from firms in innovative industries. Research Policy, 44(10), 1915-1930.
Briffa, M. (2019, April 1). Brandjacking: How to avoid and survive an attack. Briffa Legal. Retrieved from https://www.briffa.com/blog/brandjacking-how-to-avoid-and-survive-an-attack/
Choi, H., Ahn, J., & Woo, J. (2020). Will there be disruptive innovation? Identifying profitable niche segments and product designs for small-and medium-sized companies and startups. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 69(5), 2057-2072.
Du Plessis, C. (2018). Examining the brandjacking phenomenon in the digital age. Papers of communication, mass media & society 2018, 22.
El-Azzi, C. K. (2022). Verification of Third-Party Online Marketplace Sellers: Protecting Consumers against Counterfeits. Hous. J. Int’l L., 45, 207.
Ertekin, L., Sorescu, A., & Houston, M. B. (2018). Hands off my brand! The financial consequences of protecting brands through trademark infringement lawsuits. Journal of Marketing, 82(5), 45-65.
Fishman, S. (2022). Trademark: legal care for your business & product name. Nolo.
Kennedy, J. P. (2020). Counterfeit products online. The Palgrave handbook of international cybercrime and cyberdeviance, 1001-1024.
Mangalasserri, K., Regin, R., Venkateswaran, P. S., Kumar, A., & Rajest, S. S. (2021). A research for the determinants leading for counterfeit purchase and a genuine product. Turkish Journal of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, 32(3), 45415-45452.
Mukhtar, S., Zainol, Z. A., Jusoh, S., & Mukhtar, S. (2018). Original Paper Review of Trademark and Its Enforcement Procedures of Pakistan under TRIPS and Paris Convention. Economics, 1(2).
O’Connor, P. (2019, December). Brandjacking: the impact of Google’s 2018 keyword bidding policy updates on hotel website visibility. In Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2020: Proceedings of the International Conference in Surrey, United Kingdom, January 08–10, 2020 (pp. 243-254). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Sáiz, P., & Castro, R. (2018). Trademarks in branding: Legal concerns and commercial practices. Business History, 60(8), 1105-1126.
Sancheti, G. (2021). The Presence of Counterfeit Products in Online Marketplace: Causes and Implications (Master’s thesis, MICA (Mudra Institute of Communications, Ahmedabad)(India)).
Siano, A., Confetto, M. G., Vollero, A., & Covucci, C. (2022). Redefining brand hijacking from a non-collaborative brand co-creation perspective. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 31(1), 110-126.
Sloane, P. S., Russell, C. A., & Sauerborn, C. M. (2019). Trademark vigilance in the twenty-first century: an update. Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. LJ, 30, 1197.
Steenkamp, J. B. E. (2020). Global brand building and management in the digital age. Journal of International Marketing, 28(1), 13-27.
Szurdi, J. (2020). Measuring and Analyzing Typosquatting Toward Fighting Abusive Domain Registrations. Carnegie Mellon University.
Winata, N., & Tan, W. (2022, February). Trademark Registration For MSMEs. In ConCEPt-Conference on Community Engagement Project (Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 698-705).
Daniel Chibuike Okoro
Technology Lawyer
