Brand Protection System Using Multi-Score Risk Analysis

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Organizations face significant challenges in protecting their brand names and domain names from abuse, including infringement, counterfeiting, and unauthorized use, due to vulnerabilities in the domain name and DNS system, leading to economic and brand equity damage.

Innovation Solution

A computerized method for protecting brand names involves crawling the global communication network to identify and analyze potential abuses, generating scores for investment, damage, popularity, and relevance, and automatically generating cease-and-desist notifications or other actions based on aggregated risk scores, while also managing domain portfolios and monitoring for security threats.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Measurement precision

If manual monitoring and analysis of potential brand abuses is performed, then accuracy in identifying actual abuses can be maintained, but the time and resources required increase significantly

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveaccuracy in identifying brand abusesVSAvoidtime required for monitoring and analysis
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system enables automated self-monitoring and self-analysis of brand abuses through crawlers that automatically crawl web pages, extract content, and generate risk scores without requiring continuous manual intervention. The system serves itself by autonomously identifying and prioritizing abusive websites based on multiple criteria including relevance, popularity, investment level, and damage potential.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

The patent replaces manual mechanical analysis with automated computational systems. crawlers automatically navigate and extract data from websites, algorithms compute relevance scores by comparing domain names and content against brand portfolios, and machine learning models generate risk assessments. This substitution of manual processes with automated mechanical systems resolves the contradiction between accuracy and time consumption.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

2Reliability

If comprehensive analysis of multiple websites is performed to identify brand abuses, then the level of brand protection is improved, but the complexity of the protection system increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvelevel of brand protectionVSAvoidcomplexity of protection system
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The protection system is segmented into distinct functional modules: crawlers for data collection, relevance computation engines for scoring, priority determination algorithms for ranking, and automated response systems for mitigation. Each module handles a specific aspect of brand protection, allowing comprehensive analysis to be distributed across multiple specialized components rather than a single complex system.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The system employs universal crawlers that can analyze multiple types of websites across different domains, a relevance computation engine that handles various brand portfolios simultaneously, and a priority determination system that works with diverse abuse scenarios. This multi-functionality allows comprehensive brand protection without proportionally increasing system complexity, as the same core mechanisms serve multiple purposes.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

3Productivity

If automated systems are used to identify and respond to brand abuses, then productivity and response speed are improved, but the precision in distinguishing actual abuses from legitimate uses may decrease

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveresponse speed to brand abusesVSAvoidprecision in identifying actual abuses
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSMeasurement precision

Solution Approach 1:

The system incorporates feedback mechanisms where relevance scores, popularity metrics, and risk assessments are continuously refined based on automated analysis results. The crawler systematically evaluates websites using multiple criteria, and the system learns from patterns in the data to improve its ability to distinguish actual abuses from legitimate uses. This feedback loop maintains precision while enabling automated high-speed operation.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

Solution Approach 2:

The system changes multiple parameters simultaneously to achieve both speed and precision: it computes relevance scores based on domain name similarity, analyzes content keywords, evaluates website popularity metrics, assesses investment levels, and determines damage potential. By changing and weighting multiple parameters rather than relying on a single criterion, the automated system maintains precision in identifying actual abuses while operating at high productivity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

Data Source

PatentUS20210248624A1System, Device, and Method of Protecting Brand Names
Publication Date: 2021.08.12 BRANDSHIELD
  • US20210248624A1 patent drawing
  • US20210248624A1 patent drawing
  • US20210248624A1 patent drawing

AI summary

A system for protecting a brand-name of a brand-owner. The system collects content of websites, and domain-name data related to such websites. The system analyzes the content of such websites and their domain-name data, and generates: a relevance score indicating the relevance of the website and the domain to the protected brand-name; a popularity score indicating the relative popularity of the website; an investment score indicating the estimated investment of monetary resources or website development resources in that website; and a damage score indicating an estimated damage that the website inflicts on the protected brand-name. Based on the type of website, being a stand-alone website or a listing on a marketplace or a social media item, the system selects a particular weighted formula to apply on these four score values, and generates a combined weighted brand-abuse score; which in turn is utilized to determine brand-abuse and to trigger or to select brand-abuse mitigation operations.