• Sectors we work in banner(2)

    Quick Reads

Harry & Meghan's ARCHEWELL US trade mark - not as hopeless as some reports suggest

min read

The US trade mark application for ARCHEWELL, Harry and Meghan’s charitable foundation, has received a non-final office action. Some media reports suggest this is a serious hiccup but trade mark applications often receive objections, particularly in the US, many of which can be overcome fairly easily.


The ARCHEWELL trade mark has been objected to under several grounds:

1.     Earlier application – whilst the US trade mark registry (USPTO) did not cite any earlier registrations that they regarded as confusingly similar to ARCHEWELL, there is a pending application for ARCHECARES.  If the ARCHECARES application proceeds to registration it may lead to ARCHEWELL being refused due to this earlier right.  There are steps that can be taken though, and it is likely Harry and Meghan are considering their options.  It is important to conduct a trade mark search before filing or using a new trade mark so that relevant third party rights can be identified to prevent serious issues; this may have happened here and Harry and Meghan may already have a plan in place.

2.     Specification – media reports have suggested the application was too vague. The US requires quite detailed terms in trade mark specifications and the USPTO will readily object to terms that are acceptable in the UK or EU on the basis they are “indefinite and too broad”.  For example, in the UK/EU the term “providing monetary grants to charities” is acceptable but the USPTO has asked that a similar term in the ARCHEWELL application be expanded upon to specify what those grants are for and provides the example of “mental health research” as a guide to the detail required.

3.     Fees – the USPTO has determined that an additional class is required if all of the goods and services covered are to be retained and therefore a further class fee will be due.

4.     Unsigned Application – perhaps one of the interesting points regarding a US trade mark is the requirement to use a mark, or at least make a statement that the applicant has a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce, at the time of filing.  Once registered, the USPTO requires evidence of use to maintain a registration at various times, such as when renewing the trade mark registration. In the case of ARCHWELL, the application was unsigned, and therefore the statement regarding use has not been verified.  The ARCHEWELL application was filed on the basis of an intention to use only (rather than on the basis of actual use or any other ground), and therefore the mark must be in use before registration will be granted.  It may be the case that registration is ultimately achieved for a much narrower range of goods and services than those currently in the application, once use of the mark has commenced, to reflect the actual use that is being made in US commerce.  The position is different in the UK and EU, where evidence of use is not required to achieve registration and broad specifications are therefore more common.  However, UK and EU trade mark registrations can be cancelled on the grounds of non-use if they have not been put to genuine use in the relevant territory within five years of the registration date.

The deadline to respond to the objections to ARCHEWELL is 2 December 2020. No doubt its progress will be closely watched!

The following statements must be verified: That applicant has a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce and had a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce as of the application filing date; that applicant believes applicant is entitled to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services specified in the application; that to the best of the signatory’s knowledge and belief, no other persons, except, if applicable, concurrent users, have the right to use the mark in commerce, either in the identical form or in such near resemblance as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods/services of such other persons, to cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive; and that the facts set forth in the application are true.

Our thinking

  • Charles Russell Speechlys advises long standing client SPS on its acquisition of Cleardata

    Hamish Perry

    News

    min read
  • Robert Lundie Smith writes for WIPR on how enforced arbitration could fix a 'dysfunctional' global FRAND system

    Robert Lundie Smith

    In the Press

    min read
  • Dewdney William Drew comments in City AM on a trade mark infringement case by outdoor brand Patagonia

    Dewdney William Drew

    In the Press

    min read
  • Dewdney William Drew writes for Solicitor's Journal on similarity, reverse confusion, and trade mark risk

    Dewdney William Drew

    In the Press

    min read
  • Charles Russell Speechlys appoints Robert Lundie Smith as Head of Intellectual Property

    Robert Lundie Smith

    News

    min read
  • Dewdney William Drew contributes to Law360's Practice Leader Insights series

    Dewdney William Drew

    In the Press

    min read
  • Charles Russell Speechlys hires first IT, Data and AI Partner with leading digital health expertise in Paris

    Marguerite Brac de La Perrière

    News

    min read
  • Dewdney William Drew comments in Business Green on a recent UK Supreme Court ruling that has effectively prohibited Oatly from using the word 'milk' in its marketing

    Dewdney William Drew

    In the Press

    min read
  • Technology Sector Lookahead 2026

    Mark Bailey

    Insights

    min read
  • Food & Beverage Lookahead 2026

    Olivia Gray

    Insights

    min read
  • Retail and Consumer Lookahead 2026

    Rachel Bell

    Insights

    min read
  • Responsible Personal Data Use in Loyalty Programmes

    Shirley Fu

    Insights

    min read
  • Dewdney Drew writes for the AI Journal on AI actors and the legal hurdles facing a digital revolution

    Dewdney William Drew

    In the Press

    min read
  • Navigating Regulation (EU) 2019/880: implementation in Italy and competent authorities for the New European Framework for Importing Works of Arts

    Maria Cristiana Felisi

    Quick Reads

    min read
  • World Intellectual Property Review quotes Dewdney William Drew on the Getty Images vs Stability AI decision

    Dewdney William Drew

    In the Press

    min read
  • Charles Russell Speechlys further expands Intellectual Property offering with new Partner hire in London

    Stewart Hey

    News

    min read
  • AI and Intellectual Property: Ownership, Infringement and Reform

    Caroline Young

    Insights

    min read
  • The Daily Telegraph quotes Nicola Saccardo on our Italian practice and wealthy individuals relocating to Italy

    Nicola Saccardo

    In the Press

    min read
  • Charles Russell Speechlys adds Corporate, Fintech, IP and Art Law team in Milan with Arrival of Annapaola Negri-Clementi and Team

    Nicola Saccardo

    News

    min read
  • Exiting an investment - how Single Family Offices can prepare a company for sale

    Mike Barrington

    Insights

    min read
Back to top