Karma Strikes: Megan and Harry Fined $150,000 for Trademark Violation

Megan and Harry faced a significant setback, just days after their $20 million Spotify deal fell through.

The Montecito couple encountered a hurdle when their trademark application for their podcast name, “Archetypes,” was rejected by US officials.

The rejection stemmed from potential confusion with an existing brand, leading to a fine of $150,000 imposed on them for violating trademark archetypes.

The couple aimed to secure exclusive rights to the name “Archetypes” for their podcast, focusing on the cultural treatment and stereotyping of women in downloadable audio recordings and podcasts.

However, their application was denied due to a previous trademark held by Archetypes LLC, a company from Arizona that obtained exclusive usage rights in 2015 for books and articles related to nutrition, fitness, and psychological self-improvement.

Marjorie Whitta Norman, the couple’s lawyer from the Los Angeles firm Wilkie, Pharr & Gallagher, has requested an extension of three months to refine their trademark application for “Archetypes.”

Notably, records revealed that both Megan and Harry failed to sign their initial application submitted to the regulatory body.

Failure to prove ownership of the trademark could lead to legal action against Megan.

To establish a claim of trademark infringement, it is essential to demonstrate the validity of the mark and unauthorized usage by another party in connection with goods or services.

In case of trademark infringement, compensation ranging from $750,000 to $30,000 per violation may be sought, with intentional acts potentially warranting up to $150,000 in damages.

The cancellation of the Spotify contract has placed the responsibility for Megan’s podcast content and copyright solely on her shoulders.

This incident echoes a similar misstep from last year when Megan attempted to revive the TIG trademark, raising questions about the competence of their legal representation.

The oversight of submitting unsigned applications has drawn criticism, with Sue Smith publicly condemning Megan’s persistence in claiming exclusive rights to a word that lacks practical monetization potential as a personal brand.

The attempt to monopolize the term “archetypes” has been met with widespread skepticism and ridicule, particularly given the couple’s privileged background and perceived disconnect from the values of empowerment they espouse.

While the concept of royalty still holds significance in the UK, the couple’s image in the US appears banal and condescending, failing to resonate with audiences seeking authenticity and meritocracy.

The public’s disinterest in Megan and Harry’s endeavors, including the ill-fated pursuit of trademark ownership, reflects a broader sentiment of disillusionment and skepticism towards their attempts at rebranding themselves as symbols of empowerment and aspiration.

In light of the trademark controversy and ensuing backlash, Megan and Harry’s reputation has suffered a significant blow, casting doubt on their ability to regain public trust and interest.

The misguided pursuit of trademark exclusivity for “Archetypes” has backfired, underscoring the challenges they face in aligning their personal brand with the values and expectations of a discerning audience.

As the saga unfolds, the couple must navigate the legal repercussions of their trademark infringement while grappling with the broader implications for their public image and credibility.