I went to the Taste Festival in London the other week (if you’re thinking of going next year, it was a collosal, pretentious waste of money).

But one of the companies promoting its wares there was Gü, the people who make those nice puddings you can buy in Sainsbury’s. Not exactly Michelin-starred cuisine, but very nice nonetheless.

I just got around to visiting the company’s website. I was immediately irritated by the gimmicky use of the umlauted ‘ü’ wherever a ‘u’ or ‘you’ would normally suffice. Check this out:

“So over to ü! Just upload ür masterpiece here and get ür friends, family, neighbours, people in the street, long-lost Facebook friends… (ü get the drift!) to vote for ü. Ü can view all the entries in the Gallery and see who’s currently in the Top 5 on the right here.”

Honestly, it’s hurting my eyes just to read that. Stop it. Right now.

I don’t honestly know if the ‘ü’ within the name of the company is an affectation or not (the company website suggests the name’s origins are in Belgium). Either way, the use of the letter like this is quite ridiculous.

I suppose it’s an attempt to be quirky, friendly, and echo the brand throughout the promotional copy. But actually it comes off as clumsy and makes the text less readable because your eyes jolt each time they run into a ‘ü’ in an unexpected place.

I can’t imagine it’s particularly screenreader or search engine friendly either. In all, a big thümbs down.

When did Sainsbury’s start checking your ID before letting you buy cornflakes? They really could have thought of a more sensible name. Like simply ‘cereals’, for instance.

I don’t want to feel like I’m buying restricted goods when I’m just after a bit of breakfast. And what on earth constitutes an ‘adult cereal’ anyway? Honestly – no wonder Tesco is the market leader by a mile.

Sarah Jessica Parker doesn’t seem to have done much since Sex and the City (this isn’t a typical start to a blog posting, I know, but bear with me for a minute).

However, she has launched a couple of perfumes. The first was called ‘Lovely‘. As product names go, this is like launching a car called the Toyota Fast, or flogging bottled water called Damp. I think there’s a slight possibility it’s some sort of parody, but even if it is, that’s just the sort of contrived nonsense only a perfume manufacturer could come up with.

It doesn’t get any better. The second fragrance is called ‘Covet‘. Covet? You’d never buy a mobile phone called the Nokia You Really Want This. And neither should you buy this perfume. If they can’t be bothered thinking up a good name, do you think they took much time worrying about the smell?

If I’m honest, I’m not sure what conclusions to draw from this. I really just wanted to point out a truly dire piece of naming. Lovely? It isn’t. Covet? I don’t. Sarah Jessica Parker should probably stick to acting.