On the fine line between concepts used by expert linguists (using the concepts of <i>meaning differentiation</i> and <i>individualization</i> as an example)

INTRODUCTION. In the linguistic examination of trademarks, terminological ambiguity persists, leading to the confusion of key concepts such as meaning differentiation and individualization. The aim of the study is to theoretically distinguish between these concepts and identify patterns of their interaction concerning composite commercial designations. This work is a logical continuation of a publication in the journal “Neophilology” (2024, No. 1). MATERIALS AND METHODS. The object of the study is composite word trademarks. The methodology includes a comparative-contrastive analysis of specific designations, as well as a critical review of current regulatory documents and scientific literature in the linguistics and law fields. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION. It has been established that meaning differentiation (the ability to convey meaning in context) and individualization (the ability to ensure uniqueness) are in dialectical contradiction. In most composite designations, the meaning-distinctiveness of a strong element is inversely proportional to its individualizing ability. The element carrying the primary semantic load often exhibits characteristics of descriptiveness, which reduces its distinctive potential. CONCLUSION. The study’s results have practical implications for developing a more accurate methodology for linguistic examination of confusing similarities. Understanding the identified relationship facilitates the creation of trademarks that effectively combine communicativeness and uniqueness. It is demonstrated that the task of a trademark creator is to find a balance between the discussed designation characteristics, avoiding extremes: pure descriptiveness (zero individualization) and absolute uniqueness (low semantic differentiation). The study is intended for specialists in the field of naming and linguistic examination of trademarks, as well as for legal practitioners whose activities are in one way or another connected with means of individualization.