In the fast-changing landscape of artificial intelligence, excitement and apprehension often go hand in hand. I’d venture to guess that the name of the newly-unveiled Stargate initiative also provokes a pair of conflicting emotions. Is this name an inspired choice, beautifully capturing the ambition of reshaping AI infrastructure in the United States, or does it bring with it a host of undesirable associations?
Let’s take a look at the pros and cons.
Pros: Dream Bigger, Reach Further
The name – no doubt derived from the interstellar travel device conceived by Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin for the 1990s film of the same title – evokes a sense of wonder and possibility.
“Star” speaks to visions of exploration, the vastness of space, and endless possibilities, while “gate” suggests access, transition, or a threshold leading to extraordinary realms. Together, they create a striking mental image: a magical gateway shimmering with a thousand points of light – a portal to the future, a passage into the unknown.
“Stargate” isn’t just a name – it’s an invitation to dream bigger and reach further.
Phonetically, the name is equally appealing. It’s smooth and easy to pronounce, and with only two syllables, it’s simple to remember. From a branding perspective, these qualities make “Stargate” a stellar choice.
That’s the good stuff. Now what about the drawbacks?
Cons: Slithering Goa’ulds and Pseudoscience
For some, the name might not evoke wonder, but the sinister Goa’uld; the slithering, parasitic creatures from the Stargate film franchise, especially appearing in Stargate SG-1. These creatures inhabit human hosts, integrating with their nervous system to control their actions and thoughts.
At worst, this imagery might heighten existing fears about AI – its potential to dominate our minds, bodies, and eventually the world. Less ominously, the name might simply feel dated, reminiscent of 1990s television.
Too, while the name promises wonder and grandeur, it can easily backfire. If the new venture doesn’t reach the epic expectations inspired by the name, it could feel overblown, lending itself to mockery.
For example, in the early 2000s, Columbia Presbyterian Hospital mounted a public relations campaign featuring the tagline, “Amazing things are happening here.”
While the slogan grabbed attention, it wasn’t the kind of attention the marketers had in mind. Healthcare workers – physicians, nurses, and aids alike – couldn’t help but highlight the “amazing” chaos and baffling mishaps unfolding daily in the hospital.
What was meant to inspire awe, instead became a parody, with “amazing” conjuring up not the wonderful, but the mind-bogglingly bad.
There’s also some heavy historical baggage to consider.
The name “Stargate” recalls the Stargate Project, a Cold War-era collaboration between the CIA and the U.S. Department of Defense. This initiative explored controversial and fringe topics like remote viewing and psychic phenomena.
For these reasons, the public might link the venture’s name to pseudoscience, government secrecy, or even failed experiments. Such connotations could clash with the image of technological reliability and scientific rigour that a high powered innovative company would want to project.
Moreover, the mysterious and classified nature of the Cold-War Stargate Project might stir feelings of distrust or unease, particularly in a tech landscape already grappling with public concerns about surveillance, privacy, and ethical AI use.
For a brand aiming to evoke futuristic innovation and credibility, this historical baggage could complicate the name’s reception.
Another possible drawback – the name “Stargate” bears a striking resemblance to SpaceX’s “Starlink”, the satellite internet service providing high-speed broadband to remote and rural areas.
Despite the difference between the two enterprises, their similar name construction could lead to linguistic confusion. In fact, a few times while writing this article, I inadvertently typed “Starlink” rather than “Stargate.”
In Sum
The name “Stargate” is an undeniably strong mark, with its simple structure and bold, futuristic tonality. But does the aforementioned baggage make it less compelling? At this stage, given the many things that contribute to a name’s success – design, messaging, and above all the brand itself – it’s hard to say.
In closing, I’d like to highlight one more potential issue: while unlikely, there could be a trademark concern. As of January 2025, the owners (whomever they may be) of the new Stargate venture have not registered the mark, nor is there a USPTO registration for a similar mark covering related goods or services. If, however, such a mark did exist, it would trigger a “likelihood of confusion” objection for the new Stargate venture.
There is, however, a registered trademark for the Stargate film and TV franchise, owned by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.
Unless goods and services overlap, this isn’t typically an issue – which is why Ace Hardware and Ace Bandages can coexist. However, “famous marks” receive extra protection.
In trademark law, these are marks that instantly connect consumers to a specific product, service, or its source. Thinking of naming your new restaurant Google? Don’t even think about it.
So here’s the $500 billion question: in theory, could the MGM franchise (now owned by Amazon) meet the high bar needed to qualify as a “famous mark?”
If so, legal complications could arise, despite the markedly distinct goods and services of the two enterprises. But this is a nuanced and complex topic best left to the legal eagles. For now, I suspect a few may have left their eyries, and are hovering in the sky, getting ready to swoop.
January 27, 2025 update: The legal eagles may have no reason to swoop down if China’s recently unleashed DeepSeek model renders Stargate’s costly infrastructure project dead on arrival. But given half a dozen reasons that far exceed the scope of this naming article, that’s probably unlikely.
