The Duchess of Sussex’s Spotify podcast, Archetypes, comes out this summer. She obviously already recorded some/most of it, and we’ve already heard the first teaser. Considering this pod is part of a multi-million dollar contract with Spotify, I assumed that Spotify’s lawyers had cleared everything having to do with the name of the podcast. But according to the nitpickers at the Daily Mail, Meghan is apparently about to face one of the biggest legal battles of her life over… the trademark for her pod? LOL. This is literally all they have on her.
Meghan Markle is now trying to trademark the historic word ‘archetypes’ after announcing that her first series of podcasts for audio streaming giant Spotify would be called Archetypes. The Duchess of Sussex made the application at the United States Patent and Trademark Office last month which covers the use of ‘archetypes’, a word which derives from ancient Greek and first entered into English usage around the 1540s.
The dizzying list of goods and services involved are ‘in the fields of cultural treatment of women and stereotypes facing women’. They include everything from podcasts, television programmes, DVDs, CDs and entertainment services distributed through satellite and cable TV, global computer networks, the internet, wireless devices, mobile applications, set-top boxes, webcasts and streaming media.
The application was made by Archewell Audio, one of a complex web of 11 companies established by Harry and Meghan and based in the opaque tax haven of Delaware. It would mean they own the trademark rather than Spotify, which paid them a rumoured £18million in 2020.
Meghan could face a legal challenge from companies that use the word in their names, such as the skincare and cleaning products business Archetypes, which has already established a trademark.
I love the fact that Daily Mail people like Richard Eden (who co-authored this mess) are so cut off from any Sussex news that they’re left to scrutinize corporate filings in DELAWARE, looking for nuggets of “news” which they then blow up and try to make into a scandal. Again, Spotify legal has already okayed Meghan’s pod name. Spotify is the one dealing with these kinds of issues. And most likely, Archewell and Spotify are only seeking a limited and highly specific trademark for the word Archetypes, as related to podcasts. The goal isn’t to trademark the word, it’s to trademark everything around the pod.
Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.
-
- Meghan, Duchess of Sussex speaks to guests at the launch of a cookbook with recipes from a group of women affected by the Grenfell Tower fire at Kensington Palace in London on September 20, 2018.,Image: 534009010, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: NO UK USE FOR SEVEN DAYS – Fee Payable Upon Reproduction – For queries contact Avalon.red – sales@avalon.red London: +44 (0) 20 7421 6000 Los Angeles: +1 (310) 822 0419 Berlin: +49 (0) 30 76 212 251 Madrid: +34 91 533 4289, Model Release: no, Credit line: – / Avalon
-
- (180925) — LONDON, Sept. 25, 2018 () — Britain’s Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, leaves after attending the Oceania exhibition at the Royal Academy of Arts in London, Britain, on Sept. 25, 2018. (/Ray Tang),Image: 534068702, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: WORLD RIGHTS excluding China – Fee Payable Upon Reproduction – For queries contact Avalon.red – sales@avalon.red London: +44 (0) 20 7421 6000 Los Angeles: +1 (310) 822 0419 Berlin: +49 (0) 30 76 212 251 Madrid: +34 91 533 4289, Model Release: no, Credit line: Ray Tang / Avalon
-
- Prince Harry and Meghan Markle attend an event at Millennium Point to celebrate International Women’s Day in Birmingham on 8th March 2018,Image: 534151125, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: NO UK USE FOR SEVEN DAYS – Fee Payable Upon Reproduction – For queries contact Avalon.red – sales@avalon.red London: +44 (0) 20 7421 6000 Los Angeles: +1 (310) 822 0419 Berlin: +49 (0) 30 76 212 251 Madrid: +34 91 533 4289, Model Release: no, Credit line: – / Avalon
-
- PEACEHAVEN, UNITED KINGDOM – OCTOBER 03: Meghan, Duchess of Sussex makes an official visit to the Joff Youth Centre in Peacehaven, Sussex on October 3, 2018 in Peacehaven, United Kingdom. The Duke and Duchess married on May 19th 2018 in Windsor and were conferred The Duke & Duchess of Sussex by The Queen.,Image: 534178843, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: NO UK USE FOR SEVEN DAYS – Fee Payable Upon Reproduction – For queries contact Avalon.red – sales@avalon.red London: +44 (0) 20 7421 6000 Los Angeles: +1 (310) 822 0419 Berlin: +49 (0) 30 76 212 251 Madrid: +34 91 533 4289, Model Release: no, Credit line: – / Avalon
-
- 173019, Meghan Markle during a visit to youth-orientated radio station, Reprezent FM, in Brixton, south London to learn about its work supporting young people. London, United Kingdom – Tuesday January 9, 2018. Photograph: © Avalon.red, PacificCoastNews. Los Angeles Office (PCN): +1 310.822.0419 UK Office (Avalon): +44 (0) 20 7421 6000 sales@pacificcoastnews.com FEE MUST BE AGREED PRIOR TO USAGE,Image: 534294906, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: WORLD RIGHTS, DIRECT SALES ONLY UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE IN CAPTION – Fee Payable Upon Reproduction – For queries contact Avalon.red – sales@avalon.red London: +44 (0) 20 7421 6000 Los Angeles: +1 (310) 822 0419 Berlin: +49 (0) 30 76 212 251 Madrid: +34 91 533 4289, Model Release: no, Credit line: Avalon.red, PacificCoastNews / Avalon
This is so dumb and desperate.
Didn’t Swift trademark a whole year??? This seems standard to keep control of how their podcast/logo are used.
Ha! Did she ? I think Paris Hilton did “that’s hot” as well.
“Apple” I think is a more common word than “archetypes”, yet look, someone trademarked it.
These DM morons think Meghan is just a silly girl googling “trademark” while getting petulant about her cute little names.
Yeah, no. Spotify is a $28 BILLION dollar company with the legal team to go with it. These sorts of ass-covering legal filings are simply asset protection 101.
I genuinely hope some well-dressed, well-paid, Spotify corporate lawyer sent this story to all her law school friends and they all got a kick out of basically being in the DM.
As a lawyer, despite the fact that I don’t practice, I can attest to the fact that we do, in fact, send stupid stuff like this to each other all the time, for laughs.
For some reason, that really tickled me!
Trademark lawyers are in fact laughing at this stupidity. There is an article in lexology about it. I can’t link to it because it asks you to register to read the article.
When non lawyers like Eden and the DM write about the law like the fools they are they look stupid.
I would imagine that “Daily Mail” is also trademarked and registered but why let that get in the way of stupid articles and faux outrage.
WORD, let’s not get into the oodles of products being peddled by the royals, and trademarked, wasn’t organic ketchup the latest moneymaker for the queen?
“the opaque tax haven of Delaware” 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
This is stupid. They criticize Meg for filing such a “historic word” (wtf does that even mean?) but then go on to say another business already trademarked it, showing there is nothing weird about Meghan’s move at all.
And they are so desperate to turn the Sussexes into tax cheats/financial con artists. Not gonna happen, RR. There’s the BRF right there to investigate if you want tax cheats/financial con artists. No Deleware tax filings needed.
“the opaque tax haven of Delaware”
Yeah, and meanwhile, QE stashes god only knows how much money in offshore accounts.
@Rapunzel: “They criticize Meg for filing such a ‘historic word’ … but then go on to say another business already trademarked it…”
Right, it’s a common practice. Lots of things are trademarked, including clothing, magazines, food, businesses, etc. I used to work briefly in trademark law as a paralegal. So I know DF is also wrong about a skincare and cleansing products company necessarily mounting a legal challenge against Meghan’s filing of Archetypes for a podcast (along with products and equipment associated with the podcast).
IOW, there is no conflict, or in legal terms, no ‘infringement,’ because these are different lines of business. If an Archetypes business associated with entertainment was already in existence, then there might be an infringement and a resulting legal challenge. Obviously, doing research is key if you are a journalist with a desire to get your story accurate. LOL!
“As a general rule, trademarks do not infringe one another if the underlying products or services of the two companies do not compete and are not distributed in the same trade channels or locations.” — nolo.com Legal Encyclopedia
If it’s so “opaque,” then how come they can get access to tax filing information?
It makes Delaware sound so exotic, LOL.
I really do like Delaware’s beaches ….
Bonus points to DM for tossing in “complex web” to add a sinister air to a business network they simply don’t understand.
There’s nothing to not understand – just separate corporate entities for different kinds of products – easily explained, but the DM isn’t in the business of explaining.
Delaware actually is kind of terrible. They are known for protecting the identity of a corporations owners. The US complains about overseas tax havens, but we’ve got Delaware, which is as much of a problem. If you want receipts, here’s an overview from Transparency.org. https://www.transparency.org/en/news/delaware-the-us-corporate-secrecy-haven
This has nothing to do with Archwell’s trademarks, of course, just the rota being snotty. Delaware does deserve the callout, however.
@Concern fae, I was just going to say the same. Delaware doesn’t sound like one of those exotic offshore locations you hear about but yeah, just as problematic. As well as other locations in the US actually, like South Dakota, and I believe Florida, Nevada and Texas.
Given the nuts out there it’s a good move to trademark it.
Being able to reuse former word phrases “opaque tax haven of Delaware” is such a time-saver for these hacks. Posted this link previously when DM was reduced to scouring corporate filings:
https://www.newstatesman.com/business/2022/01/the-right-wing-press-is-guilty-of-hypocrisy-on-harry-and-meghans-tax-haven
This article is hilarious and amazing. It’s clear that the Rota have no clue how federal taxes work in the U.S.
Try using the word Apple for anything other than a fruit and a stupid name for a girl. I dare you.
And if the Beatles had their act together they wouldn’t have let Apple computer steal the name and be forever confused with Apple Records.
Actually, the tech company Apple put a bite in its logo to avoid a trademark fight with the Beatle’s Apple Records. The word Apple was ok, but the logos were too similar, so the tech company’s TM application would have been rejected. The same name can be trademarked as many times as there are different industries using it and the symbol/fonts are different.
This is just how businesses work! This is how it was is done. There is nothing here and it boggles my kind that the DM assumes that their readers cannot understand that. Maybe the assumption is warranted, but I doubt it.
“Historic” words aren’t allowed? Apple, Amazon, Gap, Twitter, and Nike would like a word.
Well, if we’re going to go back to the ancient Greeks, Homer of Chios would like a word with Homer Simpson.
Oh for Pete’s sake. If she hadn’t trademarked the term, somebody else would have to profit of it. It is common (business) sense to try and protect the terms you’re using professionally. I’d be interested in seeing an opposition filing from the skincare company mentioned as Archewell Audio’s filing is for a very defined area as it should be.
What always strikes me with the faux outrage is the NERVE to mention what the Sussexes have rightly acquired. Like their bathrooms erm the Royal family and the dispicable way they accumilated all that land and homes. Delaware Tax haven..wasnt the Queen mentioned in the panama papers ?
Yes, the context is very narrow and specific. The trademark is for the name Archetypes relating to’
“a podcast series in the fields of cultural treatment of women and stereotypes facing women”
So either these journalists stirring outrage don’t understand basic trademark practices (incompetent), or they do but they know their readers don’t do they’re trying to get them riled up against Meghan for bogus reasons (malice).
These “journalists” don’t need to understand trademark practices. They don’t even care to understand, because trademark practices are boring to both them and their readers. It’s the same with how they don’t know where anyplace is in the US, geography is boring. What’s not boring is anything to do with Meghan and their invented narrative of how she’s an arrogant, social-climbing striver.
Imagine a world where you could own a word like they are suggesting. There is a reason that is not a thing and not what Meghan did. It would be ridiculous.
The TM filing is, indeed, specific to the podcast and it’s SUBJECT MATTER. It wouldn’t even prevent another podcast, based on different subject matter, from using the word. And, yes, the Fail’s publisher has, indeed, trademarked all iterations of “Daily Mail,” which clearly could come into common usage far more frequently than a rarely-used word like “Archetype.” I mean, I get daily mail, don’t you? The ignorance here is staggering, and the Meghan haters on SM are having a little field day over this outrage. It would be amusing if it weren’t so annoying.
At this point, all I can say is – thanks for the free promo and see you this summer!
Bingo!
This just shows how uneducated and pathetic the rats really are. They do not understand business law or American laws and should stick to their gossip columns.
The faux outrage for clicks. I’m guessing Eden assumes his readers are that dumb and haven’t been involved in any form of business. Yes, she’s not trying to trademark the word.lol It’s for her podcast. I hope this link goes through. It lists the numerous times Archetypes has been trademarked (Archetype alone has been trademarked a lot). OMG..Black & Decker trademarked the ‘historic word’ Archetypes. Who do they think they are?
https://trademarks.justia.com/search?q=Archetypes
So much reaching. It IS hysterical but also pathetic. And a little frightening, that this woman who is living her best life and trying to do some good, (not to mention make some money for herself and her family) STILL has to put up with this sh*t on the daily.
Lol, the DM continues to shoot itself in the face.
I’m just laughing at the title of this post and the DM being “terribly upset.” Of course they are. She dared to breathe, they’re upset!
The desperation for anything Sussex related though is so obvious.
I really hope Richard got dragged for this ridiculous article.
Getting dragged just means more clicks.
Yep. Don’t drag them, report them for misleading information.
this story will make 0 traction in the US because even the dumbest American knows that you copyright shit like this for business purposes. If I were British I would be protesting the DM and Sun daily, the lies they tell make that whole island look ridiculous, like are you people really that stupid!
Am sure DM will try endless story tweaks to court and measure response. Crux of Sussexsmear story may work to hang on to less-educated British woman target audience, but, won’t likely help attract US audience.
Yeah its stupid to attack Meghan for trade marking “Archetypes ” and then use an example of a company that has already done the sane thing. So dumb but I guess they figure it will fly with Daily Fail readers. But my guess is that they know the stories will get picked up by others like PopSugar and Good Housekeeping and other Meghan hating sites so more clicks for them I guess. Bottom feeders!
That’s just it. I mean, any logical person can see this is a ridiculous attempt to make more hate. What’s depressing is, they Fail wouldn’t be doing this if it didn’t generate money somehow.
Weren’t some people here up in arms when Taylor Swift did exactly the same thing?
I’m going to start a newspaper called The Daily Mail, two common words in the English language, and see what happens. Will the Daily Mail or their parent company sue me for infringement of copyright?
The “ opaque tax haven of Delaware “. Sounds like the Mystic Kingdom. What a joke.
If only they would cover the tax havens where the queen hides her money with this intensity.
Not only did the DM cover this nonsense but it was a segment on a UK morning show.
Everyone should read @pofip brilliant post on this on twitter. DM knows or views their readers as having the brain capacity of a worm… my apologies to all worm species.
Thanks for the link. Think I’ll try launching my new Daily Mail
artists’ materials, computerized accounting services and health club services just to see if they file suit.
Maybe it’s all in the pronouncing of the word…like archEtype,after their son.
Meghan and Harry are handling their business as they should do-this has nothing to do with the royal family or the UK-the UK tabloids need to stay in their lanes since they don’t understand legal issues involving business projects-Get a life people.