Summary
Common Mark Certificates (CMCs) and Verified Mark Certificates (VMCs) are both digital certificates used within the BIMI (Brand Indicators for Message Identification) framework to display brand logos in email inboxes. While they share the goal of enhancing brand visibility and email trust, their core differences lie in the verification process, cost, and the visual trust indicators they provide. VMCs offer a higher level of assurance, typically displaying a verified blue checkmark alongside the logo, which requires a legally registered trademark. CMCs, on the other hand, provide a more accessible entry point for brands, requiring proof of existing logo use rather than a trademark, but generally only display the logo without the additional verification mark.
Key findings
- Verification rigor: VMCs demand a legally registered trademark for the logo, ensuring a stringent verification process. CMCs accept proof of prior usage or existence of the logo, making them easier to obtain for businesses without registered trademarks.
- Visual distinction: A key benefit of a VMC is the display of a blue verification checkmark next to the logo in supporting email clients (like Gmail), signaling higher trust. CMCs only display the logo, without this additional checkmark.
- Cost implications: CMCs are generally more affordable than VMCs, primarily because they bypass the costly and time-consuming trademark registration process. However, both still involve annual fees to certification authorities.
- Market support: Initially, CMC support was primarily limited to Gmail, while VMCs enjoyed broader adoption. The landscape is evolving, but VMC still often offers wider recognition across email clients.
- Accessibility: CMCs are designed to make BIMI more accessible to a wider range of organizations, including smaller businesses or those with less formal branding registration.
Key considerations
- Trademark status: Your existing trademark status is the primary determinant. If you have a registered trademark, a VMC is the natural choice. If not, a CMC offers a viable alternative to still display your logo.
- Budget and resources: Consider the financial investment for the certificate itself and the underlying trademark registration if pursuing a VMC. CMCs can be a more cost-effective way to get started with BIMI.
- Brand trust goals: Assess whether the added visual trust of a blue checkmark is crucial for your brand's perception and deliverability strategy. For some, the logo alone is sufficient.
- Certification authority availability: Not all certification authorities (CAs) currently offer CMCs, or they may market them under different names. For example, DigiCert offers both types of mark certificates.
What email marketers say
Email marketers are often weighing the practical benefits and challenges of implementing CMCs versus VMCs, especially regarding cost, verification ease, and immediate impact on email campaigns. Many are keen on the accessibility of CMCs for displaying logos without the full trademark hurdle, while also recognizing the enhanced trust signal provided by the VMC's blue checkmark. The emerging nature of CMCs also leads to questions about their long-term widespread support and the specific validation processes required by certification authorities (CAs).
Key opinions
- Cost efficiency: Many marketers view CMCs as a more accessible and cost-effective entry point into displaying logos via BIMI, especially for brands that haven't secured a registered trademark.
- Simpler acquisition: The process for obtaining a CMC is perceived as significantly less cumbersome than a VMC, as it avoids the extensive legal and financial requirements of trademark registration.
- Gmail focus: CMCs are seen as particularly relevant for those whose primary audience is on Gmail, given its early support for this certificate type.
- Brand visibility boost: Even without the blue checkmark, displaying a logo through a CMC is still considered a valuable step for brand recognition and improving engagement in the inbox.
- Trust signals: Marketers recognize that the blue checkmark from a VMC offers a stronger, more explicit trust signal to recipients, potentially leading to higher open rates and reduced spam complaints.
Key considerations
- Future adoption: The long-term widespread adoption of CMCs by other mail providers besides Gmail is a common question, influencing investment decisions.
- Validation process clarity: There's an ongoing need for clarity on the exact verification steps and requirements for CMCs, particularly concerning how closely a graphic must match existing usage to pass CA muster.
- Provider availability: Confirming which certificate authorities (CAs) actually offer CMCs (and under what names) can be challenging, as some providers like Entrust may not publicly sell them.
Marketer view
Marketer from Email Geeks suggests that obtaining a Common Mark Certificate (CMC) is likely a much quicker and more affordable process, especially if you do not already possess trademark or servicemark paperwork. This makes it an attractive option for businesses looking to implement BIMI without the significant overhead of trademark registration.
Marketer view
Marketer from CheapSSLShop.com advises that while VMCs ensure legal compliance and robust brand assurance, CMCs simplify the process for businesses aiming for secure, branded emails without the stringent VMC requirements. This provides a clear pathway for broader adoption of email branding.
What the experts say
Experts emphasize that the primary differentiator between CMCs and VMCs lies in the trademark requirement and the resulting trust signal. While CMCs offer a practical, lower-barrier method for brands to adopt BIMI and display their logos, VMCs provide a higher level of verified trust due to the stringent trademark validation process. They highlight the evolving nature of support for CMCs among mail providers and the certification authorities, indicating a need for careful consideration of a brand's specific needs and readiness (e.g., trademark status) when choosing between the two.
Key opinions
- Trademark as core difference: The fundamental distinction is the VMC's requirement for a registered trademark, which the CMC bypasses by accepting proof of existing use, making it more flexible.
- Trust signal strength: VMCs offer a stronger trust signal (the blue checkmark) due to their rigorous validation, which may lead to better deliverability and user confidence compared to CMCs.
- Market adoption: While CMCs are new and initially Gmail-centric, experts anticipate broader adoption by other mail providers over time, increasing their utility.
- CA verification diligence: Certificate Authorities (CAs) are expected to conduct thorough, albeit practical, checks for CMC issuance to ensure legitimacy without being overly burdensome to applicants.
- DigiCert's approach: DigiCert appears to be offering a CMC-like certificate under the name 'DigiCert Mark Certificate', indicating their commitment to broader BIMI adoption.
Key considerations
- Evolving process: Given the relative newness of CMCs, the exact commercial and verification processes from CAs are still developing and may require direct inquiry.
- Provider availability: Not all established VMC providers, such as Entrust, publicly offer CMCs, necessitating research into alternative options.
Expert view
Expert from Email Geeks predicts that the process for obtaining a Common Mark Certificate (CMC) will likely involve paying a fee to a Certification Authority (CA), submitting corporate paperwork, and potentially having them verify your website's history. He believes CAs aim to avoid rejecting legitimate applications.
Expert view
Expert from SpamResource.com discusses Google's support for Common Mark Certificates (CMCs) with BIMI, noting that the process is probably much quicker and cheaper than a VMC if you don't already have trademark or servicemark paperwork. He also points out that CMCs are currently Gmail-only, though this is likely to change.
What the documentation says
Official documentation from organizations like the BIMI Group and certificate authorities provides the definitive technical requirements and verification processes for both Common Mark Certificates (CMCs) and Verified Mark Certificates (VMCs). These documents outline the differing criteria for logo validation, from strict trademark requirements for VMCs to more flexible proofs of use for CMCs. They also detail how these certificates integrate with the BIMI standard to enable brand logo display in email clients, while noting distinctions in visual indicators and issuer practices.
Key findings
- Defined processes: The verification processes for both CMCs and VMCs are explicitly outlined in the BIMI Group's 'Minimum Security Requirements for Issuance of Mark Certificates' document.
- Trademark vs. prior use: VMCs necessitate a trademark registered with an official Intellectual Property Office. CMCs require verifiable proof of the mark's prior existence and legitimate use, not necessarily a trademark.
- Visual outcome: VMCs are designed to display the logo with an authenticated checkmark, while CMCs are generally for logo display without this additional verification indicator.
- Provider implementation: Some CAs, like DigiCert, clarify their implementation of CMCs, sometimes under different product names like 'DigiCert Mark Certificates'.
Key considerations
- Compliance with specifications: Brands must ensure their logo and associated information comply with the technical specifications outlined in the BIMI requirements document, especially regarding SVG format and ownership.
- DMARC enforcement: Both CMCs and VMCs require a DMARC policy set to enforcement (quarantine or reject) for the domain. Ensure your DMARC record is properly configured.
- Certification authority details: While general requirements exist, the specific steps and portal for purchasing a CMC may vary by CA and might not be directly available on their public websites, requiring direct contact.
Technical article
Documentation from BIMI Group clarifies that the verification processes for Common Mark Certificates (CMCs) are outlined in section 3.2.16 and Verified Mark Certificates (VMCs) in section 3.2.17 of their 'Minimum Security Requirements for Issuance of Mark Certificates' document. This provides a foundational understanding of the differing validation procedures.
Technical article
Documentation from DigiCert explains their 'DigiCert Mark Certificates' which function similarly to CMCs, requiring a logo in SVG format and proof of prior use rather than a full trademark. This offering streamlines BIMI adoption for businesses not yet ready for a VMC.
Related resources
15 resources
Related pages
What is the pricing and approach behind VMC (Verified Mark Certificates) and BIMI (Brand Indicators for Message Identification)?
What is the cost of VMC certificates and are there cheaper alternatives?
How do I set up BIMI? Is a VMC certificate always required?
What are the benefits of using CMC certificates for BIMI logos?
How do I set up BIMI with a CMC, and what are common issues?
A simple guide to DMARC, SPF, and DKIM
A guide to BIMI accredited certificate providers
What are the requirements and alternatives for implementing BIMI with VMC certificates, especially regarding trademark jurisdiction and costs?
What are the trademark requirements for BIMI VMC, and can alternative jurisdictions or certifications be used?
Understanding the business value and ROI of implementing BIMI
