Well, context always helps. Like in choosing that "secondary typeface". But...

- The hole in the "ra" needs help. You can't tighten the letters up too much more, but you might extend the beak of the "r" further down (be careful of making it look retarded though) and/or you can extend the right side of its foot serif. You might also try taking the beak of the "r" over and above the "a" (like in the original Cheltenham), assuming that much flair suits the client.
- The "g" is standing out, the way binocular "g"s tend to do during deliberative reading. You might not have to go to a monocular form, but it's gonna have to become much more straight-laced.

Secondary typeface: although I don't like Futura, it might work here.

Oh, and your thin vertical bar will have to change weight
with the size the logo is rendered (or actually, viewed) at.

hhp

I've adjust the a to be a bit more symmetrical to the r, not sure if I gained much. I also extended the foot of the r per your recommendation, it's subtle but helps a little. Also, increased the stroke of the line.

before the feedback:

1. there's a TM/

Thanks for the heads-up David. I was under the impression that if the trademark is in a different market or industry, then it's fair game. For instance, McDonald's lawn care can be trademarked. McDonald's hotdogs would have problems.

Was I given bad information?

Nathan

That's right, though it wouldn't stop McDonalds fast food company from suing McDonalds Lawn Care for the hell of it.

I heard over in Scotland that a lot of people using the McDonald name are being hit with law suits if they use it for their businesses...it's their name too! Gotta love multinational corporations.

Sure, makes sense. A company like McDonald's can afford (and likely needs to afford) lawsuits to prevent the dilution of their brand.

I'm not sure if the same is true for the aforementioned company in question.

Here's some more info that I found on the subject:

Copyright infringement requires "substantial similarity" of protected elements, whereas the test for traditional trademark infringement is "confusing similarity." That is, the test for trademark infringement asks whether the ordinary buyer -- not looking for subtle differences or fine details -- would believe both products (or services) came from the same source. The key to trademark infringement is "likelihood of confusion," i.e., whether two marks are sufficiently alike to cause consumer confusion as to their source or origin. Courts consider the following factors in determining likelihood of confusion:

1. Similarity of the conflicting marks;
2. Relatedness or proximity of the two companies;
3. Strength of the senior users mark;
4. Marketing channels used;
5. Degree of care likely to be used by purchasers in selecting the goods;
6. The "second comers" intent in selecting its mark;
7. Evidence of actual confusion;
8. Likelihood of expansion in product lines


TIP: To constitute trademark infringement, the two marks don't have to be exactly alike -- just confusingly similar. Unlike most things in life, close is good enough. Under the Trademark Dilution Act of 1995, which became law in 1996, the owner of a "famous" trademark can now stop someone from using its trademark if it tends to weaken, blur or tarnish the famous mark. Unlike traditional trademark law, which still applies, with trademark dilution you do not have to show any likelihood of confusion over the source or sponsorship of the goods or services. Trademark dilution is described in greater detail later in this article.


Trademark Dilution


Trademark dilution refers to the whittling away of a famous trademark's distinctiveness through unauthorized use. Under federal trademark dilution law, the owner of a "famous" mark is entitled to stop another person's commercial use of its mark that dilutes, blurs or tarnishes its "distinctive quality." Unlike traditional trademark infringement, neither likelihood of confusion, nor competition between the parties' goods is required.


What the federal trademark dilution statute does (15 U.S.C. 1125(c)) is make parody and satire, especially in advertisements and commercials, a high risk endeavor. For example, where there's a negative or unwholesome connotation about a "famous" mark, courts are likely to enjoin use.

TIP: Trademark dilution only applies to strong marks. Dilution can occur when a well- recognized mark is parodied in an advertisement, even if there is no likelihood of confusion1.

the best thing is to ask a Lawyer. not a friend. but a lawyer.

e.g. - what is the difference:

1. e

A little follow up. This e|range has nothing to do with golf, sports, or hardware technology. This is a professional service organization.

Actually David, as I understand it, you are not allowed to use the

PS: Thanks all for your comments on legal trademark issues. Though we have strayed a bit from the original post and I would like to get back on track if possible.

Look forward to your critique :-)

ok. here my last word:

* ....can be a lenghty process (10+ years)" - maybe. Leonardo Dicaprio didn't wait 10 years (Leonardo Dicaprio is a TM); DreamWorks SKG

To me the vertical slash is unfriendly, completely cutting off one part of the mark from the other. I don't know if the four diamonds bunched into a larger diamond in Zapf Dingbats will work (is your typeface Melior?) but I think you need something else than the slash.