What are the benefits of using CMC certificates for BIMI logos?

Key findings

• No trademark needed: CMCs eliminate the stringent requirement for a registered trademark, which was a significant barrier for many organizations wanting to implement BIMI with a Verified Mark Certificate (VMC).
• Faster adoption: By removing the trademark hurdle, CMCs enable a quicker path to BIMI implementation, allowing brands to display their logos in the inbox more rapidly.
• Cost-effective solution: The absence of trademark requirements potentially reduces the overall cost and complexity associated with achieving BIMI compliance.
• Broader applicability: CMCs open up BIMI to a wider array of entities, including smaller businesses, non-profits, or brands with established logos that may not be formally trademarked, often referred to as prior use marks.
• Enhanced brand visibility: Displaying a validated logo directly in the inbox boosts brand recognition and improves the visual presence of emails.
• Increased trust: A verified logo signals authenticity to recipients, reducing the likelihood of emails being mistaken for spam or phishing attempts. This complements core authentication protocols like DMARC, SPF, and DKIM.
• Google's support: The backing from major email providers like Google is crucial for driving widespread adoption and making CMCs a viable option for senders globally.

Key considerations

• Provider support: While Google supports CMCs, other email providers may still require VMCs (or other specific requirements) for BIMI logo display. Staying informed on provider requirements is important.
• Verification process: Even without a trademark, organizations must prove prior, legitimate use of their logo, often through publicly accessible records like the Internet Archive (archive.org).
• Legal weight: CMCs may not offer the same legal protection against logo misuse as a VMC, which is tied to a registered trademark. Organizations should weigh the benefits against their specific legal and branding needs.
• Future of unofficial methods: The increased ease of BIMI adoption via CMCs could lead to deprecation of any unofficial or hacky methods for displaying logos in inboxes.
• BIMI is not a deliverability silver bullet: While CMCs enhance brand visibility and trust, foundational email authentication (DMARC, SPF, DKIM) and good sending practices remain critical for overall email deliverability.

Key opinions

• Game-changer for accessibility: Many marketers believe CMCs remove a major barrier to BIMI adoption, making the display of brand logos achievable for a much wider range of businesses.
• Simplifies implementation: The process of getting a logo to display in the inbox is perceived as faster and less complex with CMCs compared to VMCs.
• Potential for broader brand display: There's an expectation that more brands will now be able to leverage BIMI to enhance their visibility and trustworthiness across email clients.
• Streamlined, legitimate display: CMCs are seen as a proper, standardized way to show brand logos, moving away from less reliable hacks.
• Adaptation required: Many marketers immediately recognized the need to update their internal documentation and client-facing guides to reflect the new CMC option for BIMI.

Key considerations

• Future of unofficial methods: There is skepticism among some about how long Gmail will continue to tolerate existing unofficial methods for logo display, even with the introduction of CMCs. This highlights the importance of transitioning to official methods like BIMI.
• Beyond gmail: Marketers are curious about which other email providers, beyond Gmail, will adopt CMC support, as BIMI's value increases with wider adoption.
• Cost and rules: Questions remain about the specific costs and detailed rules for obtaining CMCs, which are crucial for budgeting and planning BIMI implementation. Understanding BIMI costs and steps is key.
• Gmail annotations vs. BIMI: There's a recognition that older Gmail features like annotations, which allowed for logo display, are likely no longer functional, making BIMI the primary official method. This is relevant for displaying logos in Gmail and Yahoo Mail.

Key opinions

• Strategic move by google: Experts view Google's support for CMCs as a clear signal of their commitment to broader BIMI adoption and enhanced email security standards.
• Phasing out unofficial methods: There's a strong consensus that the informal ways of displaying logos (e.g., via Gmail annotations) are likely to be deprecated or become ineffective.
• Legitimizing brand display: CMCs provide a legitimate, standardized pathway for brand visibility, promoting trust and consistency across email platforms.
• Lower barrier to entry: The removal of the trademark requirement is seen as a key factor in making BIMI accessible to a wider array of organizations, fostering broader adoption and ROI.
• Focus on reputation: While CMCs simplify logo validation, experts emphasize that a strong sender reputation and proper DMARC enforcement remain foundational for logos to consistently display.

Key considerations

• Longevity of unofficial methods: Despite past predictions, the delay in deprecating unofficial logo display methods by Gmail raises questions about the immediate urgency for some senders, though experts maintain they are numbered.
• Practicality of requirements: The requirement for proof of prior logo use via mechanisms like archive.org is noted as somewhat unconventional by some experts, though workable.
• Beyond google support: The full impact of CMCs hinges on whether other major email providers will follow Google's lead in supporting them, potentially without public announcements.
• BIMI's overall status: While CMCs make BIMI more accessible, the question of whether BIMI will become a standard trust indicator on par with SSL/TLS for websites, or if VMC is mandatory for BIMI, is still a point of discussion.

Key findings

• Distinct verification processes: The verification processes for CMCs are formally documented and differ from those for VMCs, allowing for logos without registered trademarks.
• Support for prior use marks: CMCs specifically accommodate prior use marks, which are logos that have been in consistent public use for a specified period (e.g., one year).
• Google's official endorsement: Google's official announcement confirms its support for CMCs, making it a critical player in broadening BIMI adoption and validating logos in Gmail inboxes.
• Reduced complexity: Documentation points to CMCs as a method to lower the complexity and barriers associated with displaying brand logos in email, making it more accessible to more organizations.
• Enhanced security without trademark: CMCs still offer cryptographic trust and domain-level authentication benefits without the prerequisite of a registered trademark, contributing to overall email security.

Key considerations

• Compliance with specifications: Organizations must adhere to the specific requirements outlined in documents like the BIMI Group's Minimum Security Requirements for Mark Certificates for CMC issuance.
• Role of DMARC: BIMI, whether with CMCs or VMCs, relies heavily on a strong DMARC policy (at p=quarantine or p=reject) for implementation. This is fundamental for validating the BIMI SVG and certificate.
• Certificate issuance: CMCs are issued by accredited Certificate Authorities (CAs), similar to VMCs, ensuring the legitimacy of the logo being displayed.