I’ve obtained Meghan Markle’s complete trademark rejection letter and enlisted the help of Washington, D.C. attorney John Witherspoon to provide an in-depth analysis.
His insights are crucial and should not be overlooked, so prepare for a detailed breakdown. Meghan, you might want to brace yourself for some critical feedback. It’s a pleasure to engage with you and your audience. My initial impression of this letter is that it represents a considerable lapse in professionalism from those involved. Without being overly critical, it’s evident that there are significant procedural errors.
There are five primary issues identified in the rejection letter. First, the Trademark Office requires Meghan to disclaim certain descriptive terms like “American Riviera” and “Orchard.” These terms are considered geographically descriptive, meaning Meghan would need to either alter the name or concede that she cannot claim exclusive rights to these terms. Essentially, if another party wishes to use these terms in their branding, Meghan would have no legal grounds to prevent them. Given Meghan's known attention to detail regarding her brand, she is likely to prefer choosing a new name over accepting such a disclaimer, as losing control over a name could be a significant concern for her.
Second, there is a request to amend the mark’s description. The current description fails to clearly delineate all elements of the logo. For instance, the letter “O” is not distinctly visible, and the description is incomplete. There’s also speculation that the logo might subtly reference “HRH,” a designation Meghan is not authorized to use. Although I have reviewed this theory, I found insufficient evidence to substantiate it. Nonetheless, the logo appears problematic, as many observers struggle to interpret its elements as described. This visual confusion further complicates the trademark application.
Third, the description of goods is either excessively broad or incorrectly categorized, which could lead to confusion. The application lists items across multiple classes but fails to properly address the requirements for each class. This approach, marked by an overwhelming amount of details, has resulted in mistakes and reflects poorly on the handling of the application. It’s a classic case of trying to be overly intricate and falling short. Ensuring that all classes are accurately identified and that the correct fees are paid is crucial to remedying this situation.
Finally, and most critically, the unsigned application is invalid. It is a fundamental requirement to sign such documents, and this omission is a significant error. Fortunately, there is still an opportunity to rectify these issues. The letter is a non-final office action, meaning Meghan’s team can address the outlined problems and resubmit the application. With the proper adjustments, Meghan can still advance her trademark application.
