In a recent development that has turned heads, Meghan Markle’s trademark application has hit a snag, and we’ve got the full rejection letter to dissect.

To help unravel the complexities of this situation, I’ve enlisted the expertise of D.C. attorney John Witherspoon.

His insights are crucial for understanding the implications of this legal hurdle, so let’s dive right in.

Witherspoon’s first impression of the letter is far from flattering.

He points out that whoever handled this application certainly missed the mark, and there are clear procedural missteps that raise eyebrows.

For one, the absence of a required signature stands out as a glaring oversight.

It’s surprising that such a basic requirement was neglected, especially in a matter of this significance.

The trademark office has flagged five key issues with Markle’s application.

The first major point of contention involves the need to disclaim certain descriptive terms.

Specifically, phrases like “American Riviera” and “Orchard” are deemed geographically descriptive.

This means that if Meghan wants to keep these terms in her brand, she must either alter her approach or accept that she won’t have exclusive rights to them.

Imagine trying to stake a claim on a public park—it’s a tough sell!

Given Markle’s meticulous nature when it comes to her brand, it’s likely that being unable to fully control the name would be a significant drawback for her.

After all, who wouldn’t want to own their brand outright?

The trademark office has also requested an amendment to the description of the mark itself, indicating that it currently fails to adequately identify all elements of the logo.

For instance, they noted that the letter “O” isn’t clearly visible, which raises questions about clarity and recognition.

Moreover, there’s speculation surrounding the logo’s design, with some suggesting it contains subtle nods to her royal status, which she is not permitted to use.

While this theory circulates, Witherspoon remains skeptical about its validity, pointing out that the logo is already visually confusing.

If people struggle to see what it represents, that’s not a good sign for a trademark application.

Another issue arises from the vague or incorrect classification of goods associated with the trademark.

Witherspoon describes the application as either too broad or improperly categorized, leading to potential confusion.

It’s almost like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole—if it doesn’t fit, it creates chaos.

The attorney emphasizes that the application has been mishandled, with items listed in multiple classes without a proper understanding of each class’s requirements.

This classic error of “overthinking” can lead to overwhelming details that ultimately result in mistakes.

Each class needs to be precisely identified, and the corresponding fees must be correctly addressed.

But perhaps the most critical blunder?

An unsigned application is simply invalid.

This is not just a minor slip-up; it’s a fundamental procedure that should never be overlooked.

Missing this step reflects poorly on those responsible for the application, and it raises questions about their attention to detail.