Legal updates and opinions
News / News
Royal IP continued
by Donvay Wegierski, Director
We have previously written about Prince Harry and Meghan Markle stepping down as “senior royals“. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will be financially independent balancing their time between the United Kingdom and North America and are assuming their newly defined roles as agreed by the Royal Family. The terms of the Spring 2020 transition are now detailed on their website.
What remains is that the Royal Couple continue to receive extensive press coverage and with it, various legal matters have arisen, notwithstanding two issues concerning intellectual property (“IP”).
Copyright
Around the time of their wedding, Meghan Markle had addressed a private five-page letter to her father, Thomas Mark and certain extracts were published in the press. As a result, the Mail on Sunday is currently defending claims of copyright infringement, invasion of privacy and misuse of personal data in court proceedings brought by the Duchess.
What might, however, be considered a set-back to Meghan Markle’s case are the recent initial findings by a UK virtual court wherein certain of the allegations raised are regarded to be “irrelevant” to her claim for misuse of private information, copyright infringement and breach of the Data Protection Act. These include allegations that the Mail on Sunday had “stirred up” issues between Meghan and her father, and that it had an “agenda” of publishing intrusive or offensive stories about her. The view, however, remains that this judgment would make no difference to Meghan Markle’s claim for misuse of private information and, at the time of writing, it is expected that the matter will continue to run its course.
Trade marks
The Royal Couple had filed for the registration of the trade mark SUSSEX ROYAL for various products and ventures in the UK, Australia, Canada, the European Union and the USA in a wide range of classes from stationery to fundraising and social care services. At that time it was reported that brand SUSSEX ROYAL already had several million followers on Instagram and that the name had been applied to a wide range of products possibly generating an income of four hundred million sterling or more. Understandably too, these actions sparked many questions on whether the Duke and Duchess had the right to use and register trade marks comprising Sussex Royal.
The Spring 2020 transition brings with it some clarity. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will instead establish a non-profit organisation to complement other existing global organisations and won’t be utilising the name Sussex Royal or any other iteration of Royal. As a consequence, those Sussex Royal trade marks filed are being removed.
Latest News
DMRE issues directives on mining sector, in line with requirements of Section 5(1) of the Mine Health And Safety Act, 29 of 1996
by Chris Stevens, Director and Head of the Mining, Environmental and Resources practice; Kathleen Louw, Director; and Bronwyn Parker, Senior [...]
COVID-19 and business interruption insurance: is your business covered?
by Sarah Moerane, Director Following the declaration of a national state of disaster on 15 March 2020, and the subsequent [...]
A worldwide pandemic – is it time to consider the inclusion of force majeure provisions in loan agreements?
By Cara Gow, Associate; Reneilwe Maleka, Associate and Juliet Siwela, Candidate AttorneyReviewed by Richard Roothman, Director and Head of the [...]
Occupational health and safety in the COVID-19 workplace
By Jacques van Wyk, Director and Bradley Workman-Davies, Director A directive has recently been issued by the Department of Employment [...]
Moving towards the end of the lockdown – keeping it consistent and clear
by Bradley Workman-Davies, Director The last big news from Government in relation to the National Lockdown, as outlined in the [...]
Do you have temporary market power? The Competition Commission’s first finding of excessive pricing under the COVID-19 emergency regulations
by Paul Cleland, Director The Competition Commission has, by way of a settlement agreement, concluded its first investigation into excessive [...]
