An interesting development regarding Meghan Markle and her fledgling Spotify podcast "Archetypes." Reports are emerging that the US Patent and Trademark Office has rejected Meghan's application to trademark the title "Archetypes."
For those unaware, a trademark is a type of intellectual property right that allows the owner exclusive rights over a specific word, phrase, symbol, or design that identifies and distinguishes the source of goods or services of one party from another.
Trademarking a brand name, logo, or product title provides legal protections against others using it confusingly similarly without permission.
When Meghan and Harry signed their big deal with Spotify to produce podcasts back in 2020, one of the first projects announced was "Archetypes," described as exploring the labels and tropes that try to hold women back. The debut season launched in late summer 2022 to reasonable success and audience reception.
However, behind the scenes, Meghan seemingly wanted stronger protections over the "Archetypes" brand by filing for a US trademark registration. This would allow her to control the use of the name in association with any media products like podcasts, books, merchandise, and more released under the "Archetypes" label in the future.
Filing an application is the first step, but trademarks can be refused either partially or fully by regulators for various statutory reasons, and that's precisely what has happened in this case.
According to public records, the US PTO examining attorney issued a refusal of Meghan's "Archetypes" trademark application. In the refusal notice, the examining attorney cited the primary ground being the term "Archetypes" is merely descriptive of the podcast goods/services and lacks sufficient acquired distinctiveness through use in commerce so far.
Descriptive terms that directly convey properties of associated products cannot be inherently distinctive enough for exclusive trademark rights.
The attorney also noted a number of pre-existing third-party uses of similar marks, including for books, articles, and seminars discussing archetypes and women's issues. This raises the bar for proving "Archetypes" has become so uniquely associated with Meghan in the minds of consumers that it requires legal protection over competitors.
If unsuccessful, the implications are that anyone could, in principle, launch their own media branded "Archetypes" without fear of infringing Meghan's claimed rights. This could erode her ability to fully control and monetize that specific brand identity moving forward.
On the flip side, a refusal isn't the nail in the coffin - some trademark applications require multiple examination cycles and amendments to eventually register.
The process exists partly to weed out descriptive or inadequate claims clogging the system that are not deserving of exclusivity. Still, this refusal adds more pressure on Meghan as she seeks to commercially develop her podcast and royalty projects in a sustainable long-term manner.
Critics may see it as another sign of overreach regarding control and perception of her public profile, while supporters counter that it simply makes prudent business sense to secure viable intellectual property in a cutthroat industry.
Overall, while trademark matters are normal parts of scaling any creative venture responsibly in an increasingly litigious commercial landscape, the most important thing remains cultivating a devoted audience and high-quality output. Trademarks alone cannot achieve success if Meghan channels her determination into cultivating authentic discussions and illuminating universal women's themes.
The podcast format and brand strengths will shine through organically over time, rather than relying primarily on potential legal protections per se. Commercial considerations must never override meaningful content.
I'll be curious to monitor Meghan's planned response and strategizing on how to potentially strengthen her position.
But whatever transpires, her listenership and impact on dialogue seem the true metrics of achievement here, rather than abstract legal classifications. Quality and resonance is what will endure where superficial trademarks may expire.
