I’ve got Meghan Markle’s full trademark rejection letter, and I’ve brought in DC lawyer John Witherspoon to help break it down. Trust me, his take is something you won’t want to miss—so buckle up, Meghan, you might want to cover your ears!
It’s great to speak with you and your audience. My initial reaction was that this letter is far from a shining moment for whoever was involved. Without being too harsh, there are some clear errors in basic procedures. For instance, a major issue was the lack of a signature where it was needed. It’s fundamental stuff like this that’s disappointing. While there are some nuanced points to discuss, the absence of a signature is a glaring mistake.”
“There are five main issues. The first is the requirement to disclaim descriptive wording. The Trademark Office wants Meghan to disclaim terms like ‘American Riviera’ and ‘Orchard’ because they’re seen as geographically descriptive. This means Meghan would have to either change the name or acknowledge that she’s not claiming exclusive rights to these terms. Essentially, if someone else wants to use these terms in their brand, Meghan wouldn’t have grounds to stop them.”
“It’s likely she’d prefer a new name rather than settle for a disclaimer. Meghan is known for being very meticulous about her brand, so not having full control over a name would probably be a significant issue for her.”
“They’re asking for an amendment to the mark description. The current description doesn’t clearly identify all elements of the logo. For instance, they mention that the letter ‘O’ isn’t clearly visible, and the description is incomplete. There’s also a theory that the logo contains subtle references to ‘HRH,’ which Meghan isn’t supposed to use. The examiner’s feedback suggests that the logo might not be meeting the required standards or might be too ambiguous.”
“I’ve seen the theory but didn’t find much substantial evidence to support it. The logo itself seems problematic, with many people struggling to see the elements as described. It’s a bit of a mess visually, which doesn’t help the trademark application.”
“The problem is with the description of goods being too vague or incorrectly classified. The application is either too broad or miscategorized, which could cause confusion. It’s a bit of a disaster and reflects poorly on whoever handled the application.”
“Again, it’s about being too clever by half. They’ve listed items in multiple classes without properly addressing each class’s requirements. It’s a classic case of overwhelming details leading to mistakes. They need to ensure that all classes are correctly identified and the appropriate fees are paid.”
“This is the biggest blunder. An unsigned application is simply not valid. It’s basic procedure to sign such documents, and missing this step is a major oversight.”
“There are opportunities to fix these issues, as the letter is a non-final office action. This means Meghan’s team can address the problems and resubmit the application. The examiner has pointed out areas for improvement, and with the right adjustments, Meghan can still move forward.”
