> won't DocuSign accuse you of "misleading" their customers by using a name that is "too similar"

Docuseal would be the winner with all the free press, and changing a name costs almost nothing.

They should make a seal be the mascot

It does seem on somewhat dangerous ground for "trademark similarity testing", "consumer perception", etc...with "docu-<next word starts with S>".

I'd have gone with "DocSeal" or something that was a harder break from the "DocuSxxx" pattern.

Thanks for pointing this out - it actually didn't expect that because of GitHub and GitLab and i haven't hears any trademark dispures between them. When Gitlab differs from Github by only 2 letters - DocuSeal vs DocuSign is already 3 letters.

But i think that's a valid concern and i need to better investigate this - changing the name shouldn't be a problem when the project is still very new.

Yeah, it's one of those things where there's no definitive guidance, just loose tests. It's possible, for example, that DocuSign wouldn't care.

But, it seems different from GitLab/GitHub since the second word starts differently. GitHut, GitHow, GitHot, etc, vs GitHub would be more similar here.

I'd keep the name and not worry too much (I like it). Going after a small open source project would be bad press for DocuSign and even if they did, it would be a promotion for DocuSeal and you could change the name afterwards.

I think the real problem with the name is that there is a docuseal.co