• Our People
  • Global Presence
  • Regions
    • Asia
    • Europe
    • Americas
  • Offices
    • Canada
      • Ottawa
      • Toronto
    • China
      • Beijing
      • Hong Kong
    • Luxembourg
    • Malaysia
    • Singapore
    • UK
      • Aberdeen
      • Birmingham
      • Cambridge
      • Edinburgh
      • Glasgow
      • London
      • Manchester
      • Oxford
  • Client liaison
    • Japan
    • Korea
  • Expertise
  • Services
    • Patents
    • Brands & Trade Marks
    • Designs
    • Litigation & Dispute Resolution
    • Commercial IP & Contracts
    • Due Diligence
    • Freedom to Operate
    • EPO Patent Oppositions
    • European Patent Validations
    • Anti-counterfeiting
    • Open Source & Third Party Code
  • Sectors
    • Digital Transformation
      • 3D Printing
      • Artificial Intelligence
      • Blockchain
      • Data & Connectivity
      • Extended Reality
      • Industry 4.0
    • Energy & Environment
    • Life Sciences
    • Agritech
    • Medical Technologies
    • Chemistry
    • Transport
    • Entertainment & Creative Industries
    • Food & Drink
    • Fashion & Retail
    • Universities & Research Bodies
    • Start-ups & Spin-outs
      • Creating value for start-ups
      • The IP driven start-up
    • Financial Services
  • About Us
    • Working with us
    • Awards
    • Corporate & Social Responsibility
    • Diversity & Inclusion
    • Careers
  • Insights
    • Articles
    • News
    • Events
    • Resources
    • Unified Patent Court hub
    • Beyond Brexit: European trade mark hub
    • M&C Reacts
  • Contact Us
Marks & Clerk logo
Marks & Clerk logo
Contact Us
Language
English
Our People
Global Presence
Regions
  • Asia
  • Europe
  • Americas
Offices
  • Canada
    • Ottawa
    • Toronto
  • China
    • Beijing
    • Hong Kong
  • Luxembourg
  • Malaysia
  • Singapore
  • UK
    • Aberdeen
    • Birmingham
    • Cambridge
    • Edinburgh
    • Glasgow
    • London
    • Manchester
    • Oxford
Client liaison
  • Japan
  • Korea
Expertise
Services
  • Patents
  • Brands & Trade Marks
  • Designs
  • Litigation & Dispute Resolution
  • Commercial IP & Contracts
  • Due Diligence
  • Freedom to Operate
  • EPO Patent Oppositions
  • European Patent Validations
  • Anti-counterfeiting
  • Open Source & Third Party Code
Sectors
  • Digital Transformation
    • 3D Printing
    • Artificial Intelligence
    • Blockchain
    • Data & Connectivity
    • Extended Reality
    • Industry 4.0
  • Energy & Environment
  • Life Sciences
  • Agritech
  • Medical Technologies
  • Chemistry
  • Transport
  • Entertainment & Creative Industries
  • Food & Drink
  • Fashion & Retail
  • Universities & Research Bodies
  • Start-ups & Spin-outs
    • Creating value for start-ups
    • The IP driven start-up
  • Financial Services
About Us
  • Working with us
  • Awards
  • Corporate & Social Responsibility
  • Diversity & Inclusion
  • Careers
Insights
  • Articles
  • News
  • Events
  • Resources
  • Unified Patent Court hub
  • Beyond Brexit: European trade mark hub
  • M&C Reacts

Too vague: Prince Harry and Meghan's trade mark application refused

19 June 2020
Print
Share

It is quite rare for a trade mark refusal to make the headlines of the national press. But when applicants are the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, it is perhaps no surprise that the rejection of their US trade mark application for ‘Archewell’ has garnered media attention.

The US application for ‘Archewell’ – the name for the Sussexes’ new charitable organisation after dropping their plans to name it ‘Sussex Royal’ – has received a non-final objection, on the grounds that the list of services covered by the application is too vague. In addition, the trade mark application form was also unsigned.

The US Examiner raised an objection to the term ‘providing a website featuring content relating to philanthropy, monetary giving, volunteer and career opportunities’ for being indefinite and over-broad. The Sussexes can overcome the objection by further specifying the nature of the content provided.

Such refusals are not uncommon. When a trade mark application is filed, the applicant must list all the goods and services they intend to protect under the mark. The application is then examined by the relevant trade marks registry of the territory in question.

In practice, the US Patents and Trademarks Office – the body responsible for examining and registering trade marks in the US – adopts a relatively stringent approach to the classification of goods and services, ensuring that the specifications covered by an application are precise and specific. As a result, applicants may be asked to provide further information about the goods or services they wish to protect, to ensure their application is limited to the particular areas of interest.

A trade mark attorney or intellectual property solicitor can assist you when preparing your trade mark application to reduce the chance of receiving a refusal or an opposition from a third party. If a refusal is received, as in the case of ‘Archewell’, then an attorney can advise on the best way to respond.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex also have pending trade mark applications for ‘Archewell’ in the European Union, Australia and Canada. In addition, the US application has been used as the basis for an International trade mark application, which currently designates China, India, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand and Russia. The applications cover a wide range of charitable and educational services, as well as merchandise such as clothing and books.

Next Story
  • Preliminary position on priority published
  • International patent insights on quantum computing
  • Cambridge: City of Innovation - The 'beer summit' that generated a genomic revolution
  • IP protection in collaborations: "Just Do It"
  • Peppa Pig v Wolfoo: clash of the cartoons
More insights

Latest Insights

Chemistry
Article
- 24 March 2023

Preliminary position on priority published

As we reported in early 2022, the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO are considering two pending referrals (G1/22 and G2/22) regarding the question of entitlement to priority. A hearing has now been set for 26 May 2023, and the Enlarged Board have now issued a preliminary opinion setting out the points to be discussed.
Read more
Quantum computing
Article
- 22 March 2023

International patent insights on quantum computing

The latest patent insight report from the European Patent Office (EPO) looks at the trends in patent filings for quantum computing, and has uncovered some interesting findings.
Read more
Article
- 22 March 2023

InterDigital v Lenovo: The latest FRAND judgment

On 16 March 2023, Mr Justice Mellor handed down the latest FRAND judgment: InterDigital v Lenovo. The case concerned a dispute between InterDigital and Lenovo as to the terms on which Lenovo should take a licence to InterDigital’s portfolio of patents which had been declared essential to the European Telecommunications Standard Institute (ETSI) Standards.
Read more
Marks & Clerk logo (white)
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Notice
  • Cookies
  • Legal Notices
  • Press Enquiries
  • Lexology
  • Mondaq