Oh dear , trademark application stalls, Archewell needs to clarify its services (podcasts, events,books, apps etc ) will be ”entertainment-based”.
What does that really mean ? How does that relate to being a charitable foundation ? Does that mean they need to avoid (say … ) medical or mental-health services ???
Jeez, it seems like they would have submitted the paperwork a while ago, and that it has taken a long time for the ruling, what’s up ?
EDEN CONFIDENTIAL: Sussexes' trademark bid for Archewell hits skids
RICHARD EDEN: The Duke and Duchess of Sussex's plans to trademark their entertainment and charity empire have fallen foul of U.S. lawyers.
mol.im
ps sorry, I just saw someone else posted this …
Not a lawyer, but we had to study Apple Corps v Apple Computer (now Apple Inc) 1978-2007. Using this as an example. Just speculating.
Basically, I think a company needs to define what it does so words don't just get eaten-up globally. Companies don't like to do this, because like Apple which started out as computers (or Virgin that started out as a record company) they may want to move into anything that makes them money longterm.
Think of any multinational or corps, whereas once upon a time they specialised, suddenly they are branching out, using their brand to cash-in on whatever's happening. For the same reason territories are now sometimes worded to include 'and universe' in case a Martian decides to watch your vid on Neptune. The universe has no collection agencies (but it may one day) so it's future-proofing.
Company owners want the name title to be as vague as possible because they project to a time when they do/own everything everywhere, hence catchall names like 'Foundation' (like 'Enterprises' used to be a favourite for entrepreneurs). However, there a) can be same/similar company names in different territories doing similar things as there are no global legal authorities b) there can be same/similar company names if their businesses are different.
You have to define what you do so others can do what they do. Owning a name should not entitle you just clear-up everything on the table, plus you can't own what was already owned before you.
Apple in the UK was different to Apple in the US. One was predominantly a record company, the other a computer company. Both operated internationally (and universally)
Apple flouted a (British) ruling 1981 that stipulated that Apple Computers/Inc could not become involved with music. It has constantly pushed against that ruling with audio hard/software and hence why Apple Corps/Inc have had to 'seek clarity' on definition on more than one occasion.
No-one really wants these ill-defined boundaries (apart from lawyers) so when creating/registering a company name, one has to define what that company does/intends to do.
If you don't know what you do (H&M) then it's a hard thing to define.
Just wanting to own the World (and the Universe) and everything in it is not helpful for a business plan.
and that the royals were the evil backward types who wanted to hush up mental suffering in the name of face. Bit of inconsistent messaging from the doppelgänger. If he’s not careful he’s going to end up having to do botched to get some money.
