Meghan Markle’s Trademark Troubles: Legal Insights Unveiled

In a surprising twist, Meghan Markle's trademark application has hit a significant snag, as revealed in a recently obtained rejection letter.

To shed light on this development, we brought in D.C. lawyer John Witherspoon, whose insights offer a deeper understanding of the situation.

If you think this is just another celebrity story, think again—there's a lot to unpack here.

John Witherspoon didn't mince words when he described the letter as a disappointing reflection of the trademark application process.

He pointed out that there are some glaring procedural errors that shouldn't have slipped through the cracks.

For starters, the absence of a necessary signature stands out as a fundamental blunder.

It's the kind of oversight that raises eyebrows, especially for someone as detail-oriented as Meghan.

The trademark office has flagged five critical issues with the application.

The first and perhaps most pressing is the need for Meghan to disclaim certain descriptive terms.

Phrases like “American Riviera” and “Orchard” are deemed geographically descriptive, meaning Meghan would have to either alter her brand name or concede that she can't claim exclusive rights to these terms.

This could open the door for others to use them without any legal repercussions from Meghan's end.

Given Meghan's meticulous approach to her brand, the idea of relinquishing control over a name likely isn't appealing.

It's clear that she would prefer to come up with a new name altogether rather than settle for a disclaimer that could undermine her brand identity.

Another point of contention is the trademark description itself.

The current application lacks clarity, particularly regarding the logo's elements.

For example, the letter “O” isn't distinctly visible, which raises questions about the overall design.

Additionally, there are suggestions that the logo might contain subtle nods to “HRH,” a title Meghan is not authorized to use, further complicating the approval process.

While some speculate about the hidden meanings within the logo, Witherspoon noted that there isn't substantial evidence to back these theories.

Nonetheless, the visual aspect of the logo seems to be problematic, as many observers struggle to interpret its elements as intended.

This ambiguity certainly doesn't bolster the case for trademark approval.

The description of the goods associated with the trademark is also under scrutiny.

Witherspoon highlighted that the application may be too vague or misclassified, leading to potential confusion in the marketplace.

This lack of precision reflects poorly on whoever managed the application, showcasing a classic case of trying to be overly clever and ending up with a muddled submission.

Compounding these issues is the manner in which items were listed across multiple classes without adequately addressing the specific requirements for each class.

This oversight suggests a chaotic approach that could easily lead to mistakes.

Properly identifying all classes and ensuring that the correct fees are paid is crucial for a successful trademark application.

The most glaring error, however, remains the unsigned application.

In legal terms, an unsigned document is essentially invalid.