If you are wondering about commercialization, you can get into (US, can't speak for other countries!) regulatory weeds pretty quickly, especially if your commercial plan involves informing clinicians.
That isn't close to a naming collision in a legal/trademark sense. Neither the "mate" of "Sugarmate" nor the "Glu" ooh ooh ooh nearness to "Glooko" is close enough to be actionable (in the US, anyway, but in this kind of thing what else matters ¯\_(ಠ_ಠ)_/¯).
Disclaimer: IANAL but have substantial experience with anally-extracted objections to naming (and other things)
Sugarmate is awesome! In fact we just got an automated phone call at 5am from Sugarmate letting us know our son’s sugar was low. It’s a killer feature.
So naming collisions can happen as long as they are in separate domains.
If your brand is too close to another, are you causing confusion?
If you went to the store and saw on the shelf:
- NutriBlend (Parent Co NutriCo)
- NutriActive (Parent Co NutriCo)
- NutriSport (Parent Co Athletic Treats Inc)
Could you think that NutriSport was a product of NutriCo? If so, thats the part the governments care about. They want people to be able to trust in commerce, to maximize tax revenue.
https://www.sugarmate.io/
There are several more in this space, at least if you are using a Dexcom CGM:
https://www.dexcom.com/en-us/partnerships/health-apps.
If you are wondering about commercialization, you can get into (US, can't speak for other countries!) regulatory weeds pretty quickly, especially if your commercial plan involves informing clinicians.