Brand names in your title and thumbnail: what is allowed and what gets you into trouble?

He made a video comparing two devices, and the video was fair and useful. Then he put both company names in the title, put both logos in the thumbnail in their own fonts and colours, and added a background that resembled one company's website.

Two weeks later a request arrived from one of the companies asking him to remove the thumbnail. They did not ask for the video to come down, and they objected to nothing he said.

The name in the title was not the problem. The problem was that the cover looked as though the company had published it.

Trademark law differs between countries, and what follows is a way of working that lowers risk rather than legal advice. For large commercial work, ask a lawyer in your country.

The distinction that settles the whole subject

There is a difference between mentioning a brand and using a brand:

• Descriptive mention: you say the product's name so people know what you are talking about. "Review of X", "the difference between X and Y". That is generally permitted in most systems, because you are describing rather than affiliating.
• Use that implies a relationship: you put its logo in your cover, or use its font and colours, or write a title that reads like an official announcement from it.

The first is a name in a sentence. The second is a visual identity that is not yours.

What is usually fine

• The brand's name in the title when the video really is about it: a review, a comparison, a how-to, a critique.
• Its name in the description and in speech, as much as the explanation needs.
• Your own photographs of the product in the thumbnail. What you shot with your camera is your photograph.
• Its name as text in your own typeface on the cover, in your shapes and colours rather than theirs.

What gets you into trouble

What happens to people most is the first row, because a logo looks like a small detail in an image, and from the brand's side it is the thing it protects most.

And inside the video

Appearance in frame follows a different logic: something appearing incidentally because it exists in the place differs from something you made your subject, and that is covered in Landmarks, logos and artworks in your frame: when does their appearance become a problem?

What this article is about is the text and the cover: the two places people see before they open the video, and the two that create the impression that the video is from the brand rather than about it.

Titles: three safe shapes and three risky ones

Safe:

• "Review of [name] after two months of use"
• "The difference between [name] and [name]: four differences that matter"
• "How do you use [name] for X?"

Risky:

• "[Name] presents…" which is the company's voice rather than yours.
• "Official offer from [name]" with no offer and no official status.
• "[Name] is bad" as a flat statement with no support. Criticism is allowed, but make it your opinion grounded in your experience rather than an absolute verdict.

All of this sits inside the decision of writing the title in the first place, and the rest of its rules are in Writing the Title and Description.

Disclosure works both ways

If the video is paid, disclosure is a professional duty and usually a regulatory one, and it belongs somewhere visible rather than at the bottom of the description.

If it is unpaid and you are worried people will misread it, one sentence settles everything: "this video is not paid and I bought the device myself." That sentence protects you from the question in the comments and protects the brand from an affiliation it never asked for.

The fairness rules for this kind of video go wider, and they are in The comparison video: how do you write one without looking biased?

In a negative review

Criticism is allowed, people need it, and channels that flatter brands lose their audience. But make your criticism both safe and useful:

• Separate opinion from fact. "My screen cracked after a month" is a fact; "their devices are rubbish" is an opinion, so say each in its own form.
• Attach the evidence. A photo, a clip, or the order number.
• Do not attribute intent. "They do this deliberately" is a sentence you cannot prove.
• State the exception. "It happened to me and to two friends, and I do not know whether it is general."

Those shapes make what you say defensible, and make the video more useful to the viewer at the same time.

If a takedown request arrives

The steps in order:

1. Read exactly what is being asked. Most requests concern the cover or one clip, not the whole video.
2. Do the design part immediately. A logo in a thumbnail is replaced in two minutes.
3. Ask for the solution. "Would changing the thumbnail be enough?" is a sentence that ends most cases.
4. Do not argue the law. Even if you are right, arguing with a body that has a legal department costs more than a new design.

And if the claim concerns the content rather than the brand, that is a different matter whose root is in Using Clips From Someone Else's Content: When and How.

A two-minute checklist

Before every publish:

• Does my thumbnail contain a logo I do not own?
• Do the font and colours resemble another party's identity?
• Does the title imply the video is from them or sponsored by them?
• Did I use an image from their site instead of my own?
• Is there a brand name inside my channel or account name?

One "yes" means a two-minute edit instead of messages after publishing.

And remember that the platform itself has terms covering all of this, with what you grant it on upload in What do you give the platform when you upload your video? And if somebody copies your own work, the route is in What to Do When Someone Copies Your Content.

The rule in one line: name names freely, and never wear anybody's identity.