Meghan Markle’s Trademark Gets Denied, Rejected as Her Brand Idea Suffers Major Setback

Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex,‌ has faced a setback in her branding efforts as the U.S. ‍Patent and Trademark ⁤Office rejected ‌her application for the “American Riviera Orchard” trademark, which she intended to use for selling⁤ jam and ⁢related products. The rejection‌ was based‌ on the fact that “American Riviera” is a⁤ commonly used nickname for Santa Barbara, California, and therefore deemed primarily geographically descriptive.​ Even the addition of “Orchard” did not alter this conclusion.

The office indicated that the ⁣public ‍might assume the ⁢products originate from Santa Barbara, as Markle resides there. Additionally, the proposed logo for ‍the ⁣brand was criticized for its poor ‌readability, making the ‌letter “O” hard to ​distinguish. The Patent Office remains open to further communication; however, Markle has three months to respond and pay a $700 fee ⁣to keep ‍her application active.

In light of the rejection,​ sources suggest that Markle’s team‌ may ​consider alternative brand⁤ names, similar to⁣ what Kim Kardashian did ⁤with her “Skims” line, as they prepare for potential changes while being mindful of the associated costs.


Meghan Duchess of Sussex has received a setback in her exercise in branding after the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office tossed out her proposed American Riviera Orchard trademark for the jam and other goods she plans to hawk.

Although the brand was unveiled earlier this year, there has been nothing to buy.

The rejection indicated that another website is already selling “American Riviera” candles, according to the Daily Mail.

“Registration is refused because the applied-for mark is primarily geographically descriptive,” the office said in its rejection.

“Commonly used nicknames for geographic locations are generally treated as equivalent to the proper geographic name of the place identified,” the office wrote.

“American Riviera is a common nickname for Santa Barbara, California,” the office said.

The Patent Office said adding the word Orchard “does not diminish the primarily geographical descriptiveness of the applied for mark,” according to the Telegraph.

The rejection said because the brand name tried to use a location  “a public association of the goods and services with the place is presumed”.

“Furthermore, the purchasing public would be likely to believe that the goods and services originate in the geographic place identified in the mark because the attached evidence shows that applicant’s founder, ie, Meghan Markle, resides in the geographic place identified in the mark,” the office wrote.

The rejection said some language needed to be changed. For example,  “cocktail napkins” could means ones made of paper or cloth.

Some back-and-forth is an exepected part of the process.

The Telegraph noted that Meghan might move forward quickly if she does not want to claim exclusive rights to the brand.

The Mail also noted that the office told Meghan stylized “O” on her proposed label does not appear to be that letter.

A report in the Express citing a source that was not named said that Meghan is likely to follow the same course as Kim Kardashian, who originally sought to brand her Skims shapewear line under the name Kimono.

“The team are thinking of backups as we speak just in case,” the source said. “They’ve been put into a bit of a last-minute spin but they’re not too worried because they are aware that Kim K also changed her brand name after launch and it still did amazingly well.”

“It will be a rather costly measure if they have to change the name at this late stage due to all the branding, but it won’t be the end of the world,” the source said.

Meghan has three months to reply, according to the New York Post, and needs to fork over $700 to keep the application alive.

 




Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.



" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Articles

Sponsored Content
Back to top button
Close

Adblock Detected

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker