Google (GOOG, GOOGL) borrowed the simple dictionary word, “ALPHABET” to create a powerful corporate name identity which could have easily been ‘COOL', ‘POOL' or a “FOOL.' Any such identity would have gotten the same global buzz and frenzy of excitement. Thankfully, they wisely aborted other possibilities like ‘HEAVEN', ‘HELL' or, ‘PURGATORY.' 

There is nothing wrong with the name ALPHABET but the name game itself?

This name is harmless and in public domain so anybody can use it in any way or shape: Alphabet Catalogue, Alphabet Listings, Alphabet Ding Dongs, etc. 

So, it's not owned by them, but they always had an ironclad ownership on the global name identity of ‘Google'' while Alphabet is commonly shared by thousands of other businesses, in various contexts, all over the world. Keeping in mind that the common word Apple is also a very successful brand identity, what level of confusion will occur with Alphabet?

Sometimes organizations, despite the efforts of global powers, still do not own their own name brand identity. Examples of these mega identities include United, National, Dynamic, and Quantum. There are already hundreds of thousands of such names in use for many such brands including: United Airlines, United Bank, and United Bakeries. The key question is why United Airlines is not as distinct and proprietary as a name like Alitalia. These are very serious and politically sensitive boardroom issues, and you have to first count the direct beneficiaries of such naming dysfunctionalities.

It is a good thing that ‘GOOGLE' teams also decided not to be named by some crazy naming exercise, in a Silicon Valley style like ‘Confusoonostor' or  ‘Godataumisote.' Otherwise there would be full-page ads running around the world on how such super creative names convey the meaning from ancient scripts as ‘humble pit', ‘soft yet very powerful' or ‘crazy dragon fighter tackling big data'. It's a fact; such exotic names often appear with a big bang effect but quietly fade away when mega budgets finally convince the confused customers of the naming stupidity.

Here, Google, by selecting a simple name, did very well. Alphabet is only a two star ranking while Google is five stars. How?