 |
|
03-07-2023, 09:24 PM
|
 |
Heir Presumptive
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Amsterdam, Upstate NY, United States
Posts: 2,372
|
|
From the article lines below I did a search to see why the two companies are in conflict with the same word.
Archewell Audio filed an application to trademark "Archetypes" in March 2022, principally in connection with "entertainment services, namely, an ongoing podcast series in the fields of cultural treatment of women and stereotypes facing women."
The patent and trademark office's initial refusal suggests that Meghan's proposed trademark of "Archetypes" is "identical in appearance, sound, and meaning," to one currently held by U.S. based Project Miracle IP Holdings. This was registered in May 2018.
This article explain it better: https://www.mandourlaw.com/meghan-ma...etypes-denied/
It happens that four years before Meghan created her Achetypes as a podcast name, a previous company, Project Miracle IP Holdings, used the same name for blogs, online publications, books and articles. The conflict was caused by the wording to explain Meghan's company using this name:
On their trademark registration, it’s clear that most of their services take a self-help approach. Unfortunately for the Duchess of Sussex, that also seems to be the focus of her Archetypes podcast. Because of this similarity, the USPTO has issued an initial refusal of registration.
The article also contradicts Meghan's nemesis, the Daily Mail, and gives her the upper hand:
trademark owners don’t “own” a specific word. However, they do have exclusionary rights over some words when used in certain circumstances. So when someone asks, “Can Meghan Markle trademark ‘Archetypes,’” the answer is yes.
Now if you are curious on Meghan's rival on the trademark, this link to their details page explains the similarities that caused the clash go in their favor: https://trademarks.justia.com/866/87...-86687391.html
or:
A series of books and written articles in the field of nutrition, fitness, sexuality, psychological self-improvement, personality identification and matching, personal relationships and dating, spirituality, horoscopes and astrology, fashion, music, and reviews and recommendations for books; Magazines in the field of nutrition, fitness, sexuality, psychological self-improvement, personality identification and matching, personal relationships and dating, spirituality, horoscopes and astrology, fashion, music, and reviews and recommendations for books
In summary: the only part I see that matches Meghan's is the start "articles in the field of nutrition, fitness, sexuality, psychological self-improvement, personality identification" and the part about reviews, but what then is a review? Meghan discussing she read a book that she likes? The line is blurry here 
But, I have to say Meghan's definition of Archetypes in relation to her podcast is 100% more accurate than Project Miracle IP Holding's telling me it's about psychological self-improvement in the same lines as astrology?
If I was in King Salomon's court I'll give the win to Meghan on this one.
__________________
Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself
-Leon Tolstoy
|
03-07-2023, 10:28 PM
|
 |
Aristocracy
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Somewhere, Canada
Posts: 213
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnolia471
|
I wouldn't trust that article as it has several mistakes in it. Such as Eugenie;s husband being James and showing a photo of the supposed couple but is actually Edo and Eugenie. Probably an Australian gossip site.
|
03-07-2023, 10:57 PM
|
 |
Heir Presumptive
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Near Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 2,375
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison H
This morning's papers are saying that they'll be offered accommodation at Buckingham Palace if they come for the Coronation. Depending on which paper you read, it could be the suite once used by Andrew or the suite once used by Diana. I don't think they'll be expected to stay at the nearest Travelodge.
|
I found the last couple of days amusing, re - places to stay by MSM.
Monday night I read they would be offered an apartment in a largely empty BP . Due to renovations.
Tuesday morning it was suggested they could stay at KP next to W & C's apartment.
Then last night another news agency said they would be allowed to stay at Frogmore cottage during the Coronation.
So I am taking every news item pre Coronation with a grain of Himalayan salt .
The whole will they or won't they attend, I knew would dominate leading up to May 6.
|
03-07-2023, 11:00 PM
|
|
Gentry
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2023
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 63
|
|
|
Yes! In other words, they have NO idea and its all just pure speculation at this point!
|
03-07-2023, 11:22 PM
|
 |
Imperial Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 14,112
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lori138
I wouldn't trust that article as it has several mistakes in it. Such as Eugenie;s husband being James and showing a photo of the supposed couple but is actually Edo and Eugenie. Probably an Australian gossip site.
|
That isn't an 'Australian gossip site' but Sky News Australia which is an offshoot of Sky News UK a major news network in the UK (and one that provides some of the best coverage of royal events ... I watched all of the Queen's Jubilee and funeral events on Sky News UK).
This site would be picking this up from Sky News UK.
All news outlets make minor mistakes at times such as names but that doesn't make them 'gossip' sites or unreliable - just badly edited.
|
03-08-2023, 07:30 AM
|
|
Aristocracy
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2021
Location: Motor City, United States
Posts: 112
|
|
|
|
03-08-2023, 07:39 AM
|
 |
Heir Apparent
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 4,488
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by HenRach Dominion
|
Or, as has already set certain parts of Twitter on fire, the article states that according to a Sussex spokesperson Princess Lilibeth Diana was christened last Friday in California.
|
03-08-2023, 07:41 AM
|
 |
Imperial Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 15,939
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by HenRach Dominion
|
Hardly an "intimate" ceremony in my eyes, no it isn't People's Magazine. 
Wonder when these invitations went out?
Logistically it would be very difficult to arrange an attendance by King Charles as well a W&K without at the very least several weeks notice.
What I notice is that Eugenie did not attend. She has so far been the one who has maintained contact with Harry. - So either she could not attend or was not invited.
|
03-08-2023, 07:41 AM
|
|
Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 9,269
|
|
|
It’s Eugenie that is close to Harry, not Beatrice.
This is very good news! The Archbishop of Los Angeles did the honours, there were between twenty to thirty guests and afterwards there was food and drink and Archie and Lili danced together. Sounds fun!
|
03-08-2023, 07:59 AM
|
|
Heir Presumptive
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Amsterdam, Upstate NY, United States
Posts: 2,372
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by HenRach Dominion
|
What does this mean on the headline?
"As grandchildren of the monarch, Archie and Lilibet are afforded the titles of prince and princess"
They decided to include their titles for the ceremony even if they are not called as such, in the official website https://www.royal.uk/royal-family ?
As a note, only Archie has a page https://www.royal.uk/archie-harrison...batten-windsor and Lilibet's name is only listed as #7, Miss Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor in the line of Succession page:
https://www.royal.uk/succession just as her York cousins # 10 Miss Sienna Mapelli Mozzi, # 12 Master August Brooksbank
Questions abound now
__________________
Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself
-Leon Tolstoy
|
03-08-2023, 08:03 AM
|
|
Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 9,269
|
|
|
Rebecca English royal reporter for the Fail has chosen to comment on the news.
Rebecca English
@RE_DailyMail
The title is in line with the precedent created by letters patent issued by George V in 1917 which conferred Prince or Princess on male line Grandchildren of the Sovereign. They have been entitled to be used since The King's accession. The Sussexes have now chosen to do this.
Buckingham Palace website will be updated in due course
|
03-08-2023, 08:07 AM
|
|
Heir Apparent
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 4,488
|
|
According to Rebecca English she's gotten confirmation from Buckingham Palace that the Sussex use of royal titles for their children are in line with the letters patent of George V and that it's up to the parents to choose to use them.
"The title is in line with the precedent created by letters patent issued by George V in 1917 which conferred Prince or Princess on male line Grandchildren of the Sovereign. They have been entitled to be used since The King’s accession. The Sussexes have now chosen to do this.
Buckingham Palace website will be updated in due course"
https://twitter.com/RE_DailyMail/sta...I54Xp8cjw&s=19
https://twitter.com/RE_DailyMail/sta...xydHbnVlw&s=19
|
03-08-2023, 08:13 AM
|
|
Heir Presumptive
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Amsterdam, Upstate NY, United States
Posts: 2,372
|
|
|
That means the Earl of Wessex had that choice, too for # 15 Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor and her brother James? Then the website should update all four at the same time
__________________
Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself
-Leon Tolstoy
|
03-08-2023, 08:21 AM
|
|
Imperial Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 14,112
|
|
|
The difference, and why there has been confusion, is that is was announced, in 1999 that the Wessex children would be styled as the children of an Earl. No such announcement was ever made by the Sussex's. All they said was that Archie wouldn't use 'Earl Dumbarton' but never that the children wouldn't, in time, use their Prince/Princess styles.
I agree this issue should have been dealt with - one way or another - by Charles or even Her late Majesty ages ago either positively or negatively. As usual this shows Charles as being weak and now forced to act to either confirm or officially remove the HRH's and to do that he will need to issue new LPs to strip them of their HRHs. I am expecting that to eventually happen - to limit HRH Prince/Princess to the children of the heir apparent in each generation only.
|
03-08-2023, 08:23 AM
|
|
Nobility
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2021
Location: West Chester, United States
Posts: 308
|
|
|
How ridiculous for the kids to be saddled in California with Princess Lilibet and Prince Archie. They will be teased down the line by bullies.
I thought the Sussex's were focused on being "progressive" and modern. Why then insist on Titles for their children in a Country that doesn't recognize them ?
Just goes to show how much the Royal Titles do in fact matter to the "grandeur" obsessed Sussex's.
And Archie's name is already plastered all over the Sussex's Foundation..... Archewell, Archetype, ect.....Just wondering what their plans are to publicize and monetize Princess Lilibet Diana's ?
Iluvbertie. Completely agree. So ridiculous and unnecessary, should have been dealt with before this. The rogue Sussex's aren't going to stop their attempts to diminish and demean The Royal Family either. Very disappointing.
How preposterous for them in America to start now with the Prince-Princess Titles......a complete farce.
|
03-08-2023, 08:23 AM
|
 |
Imperial Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 12,602
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toledo
That means the Earl of Wessex had that choice, too for # 15 Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor and her brother James? Then the website should update all four at the same time
|
Yes, there was a choice for the Sussex children, but Edward & Sophie chose to not have their children carry the titles of Prince & Princess.
|
03-08-2023, 08:27 AM
|
|
Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 9,269
|
|
|
Though Sophie Wessex said in an interview that after the children reached 18 they could choose to use those titles if they wanted.
|
03-08-2023, 08:34 AM
|
|
Heir Apparent
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 5,777
|
|
It is unsurprising but nonetheless disappointing that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and to a lesser extent the King have decided to enforce the sexism of 1917 for another generation.
It also creates an odd situation for Lady Louise and Viscount Severn, as their lack of royal styles can no longer be interpreted as part of a progressive downsizing of royal titles but is only an inexplicable absence of the titles enjoyed by all other male-line grandchildren before and after them. (It was explained in 1999 that the decision was due to the future Wessex children's future roles, but that explanation no longer holds as the Sussex children's future roles are not expected to be any more official than the Wessex children's.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong
Rebecca English royal reporter for the Fail has chosen to comment on the news.
|
I see nothing "fail" in Rebecca English (and other royal correspondents) choosing to report the Palace's statement on a news story of public interest.
|
03-08-2023, 08:38 AM
|
|
Heir Apparent
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 5,777
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by HenRach Dominion
|
Thanks! The statement from the parents' spokesperson is: "I can confirm that Princess Lilibet Diana was christened on Friday, March 3 by the Archbishop of Los Angeles, the Rev John Taylor."
For clarification, this appears to refer to Bishop John Harvey Taylor, the bishop (not archbishop) of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles. As the Episcopal Church is the American branch of the Anglican Church, Lilibet is therefore an Anglican like the other members of the Royal Family.
https://diocesela.org/bishops-office/
|
03-08-2023, 08:46 AM
|
|
Courtier
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2020
Location: N/A, Bulgaria
Posts: 741
|
|
|
Not surprising. I never doubted that they wanted the titles. Just like they want everything they can get off the monarchy. Which is why I was so surprised reading that postes here thought Meghan wouldn't care that she had been evicted from Frogmore because she didn't need it. She doesn't really need many things she feels entitled to. It doesn't matter.
We're linked, not ranked until it's MY rank we're talking about, huh?
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
Recent Discussions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
