Interbrand and Business Week have published their list of the top 100 most valuable brands of 2003. The rankings were based on projected profits, discounted to reflect how likely those profits were to materialise. In order to be eligible, the brands had to be valued at over $1 billion. They had to derive at least a third of their sales from outside their home countries and have a significant distribution throughout the Americas, Europe and Asia (although presumably not Africa and Australasia and in fact there are no brands from those two continents on the list). The need for the brands to have publicly available marketing and financial data also knocked some major brands out.
Not surprisingly, COCA COLA is top-dog, with MICROSOFT second and IBM third. Top non-US brand is NOKIA at number 6, which is Finnish. For the parochially-minded, 5½ British brands made it on to the list: HSBC (37); BP (69); REUTERS (76); SMIRNOFF (85); JOHNNIE WALKER (99) and SHELL (which is joint British and Dutch owned) (83).
Learn about effective branding here.
Utterly irrelevant site found while searching for information about branding here.
Not surprisingly, COCA COLA is top-dog, with MICROSOFT second and IBM third. Top non-US brand is NOKIA at number 6, which is Finnish. For the parochially-minded, 5½ British brands made it on to the list: HSBC (37); BP (69); REUTERS (76); SMIRNOFF (85); JOHNNIE WALKER (99) and SHELL (which is joint British and Dutch owned) (83).
Learn about effective branding here.
Utterly irrelevant site found while searching for information about branding here.
TOP 100 BRANDS
![<strong>TOP 100 BRANDS</strong>]()
Reviewed by Anonymous
on
Friday, July 25, 2003
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html