TheManWithNoName
Registered Shopper
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2023
- Messages
- 2,257
Troth is currently flogging a framed 'Queen Conch' duo - one featuring a carving of the late Queen, and another featuring a carving of King Charles (although the carving looks more like Larry Grayson) - for £249.
I wonder if they've had these officially licensed? There's no indication as such on their website or on the item photo.
Section 4 (1) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 states:
“A trade mark which consists of or contains –
(a) the Royal arms, or any of the principal armorial bearings of the Royal arms, or any insignia or device so nearly resembling the Royal arms or any such armorial bearing as to be likely to be mistaken for them or it,
(b) a representation of the Royal crown or any of the Royal flags,
(c) a representation of Her Majesty or any Member of the Royal Family, or any colourable imitation thereof, or
(d) words, letters or devices likely to lead persons to think that the applicant either has or recently has had Royal patronage or authorisation, shall not be registered unless it appears to the registrar that consent has been given by or on behalf of Her Majesty or, as the case may be, the relevant Member of the Royal Family.”
The Lord Chamberlain's Office is empowered to grant the consent referred to in Section 4(1) on behalf of Her Majesty The Queen. The Lord Chamberlain’s Office has a standard procedure and document to implement the grant of any such consent. The consent is conditional on (inter alia) the proprietary rights in the registration remaining with the applicant, and cannot be assigned without further consent.
Unauthorised Use
Section 99(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 states that "a person shall not without the authority of Her Majesty use in connection with any business the Royal arms (or arms so closely resembling the Royal arms as to be calculated to deceive) in such manner as to be calculated to lead to the belief that he is duly authorised to use the Royal arms".
I wonder if they've had these officially licensed? There's no indication as such on their website or on the item photo.
Section 4 (1) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 states:
“A trade mark which consists of or contains –
(a) the Royal arms, or any of the principal armorial bearings of the Royal arms, or any insignia or device so nearly resembling the Royal arms or any such armorial bearing as to be likely to be mistaken for them or it,
(b) a representation of the Royal crown or any of the Royal flags,
(c) a representation of Her Majesty or any Member of the Royal Family, or any colourable imitation thereof, or
(d) words, letters or devices likely to lead persons to think that the applicant either has or recently has had Royal patronage or authorisation, shall not be registered unless it appears to the registrar that consent has been given by or on behalf of Her Majesty or, as the case may be, the relevant Member of the Royal Family.”
The Lord Chamberlain's Office is empowered to grant the consent referred to in Section 4(1) on behalf of Her Majesty The Queen. The Lord Chamberlain’s Office has a standard procedure and document to implement the grant of any such consent. The consent is conditional on (inter alia) the proprietary rights in the registration remaining with the applicant, and cannot be assigned without further consent.
Unauthorised Use
Section 99(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 states that "a person shall not without the authority of Her Majesty use in connection with any business the Royal arms (or arms so closely resembling the Royal arms as to be calculated to deceive) in such manner as to be calculated to lead to the belief that he is duly authorised to use the Royal arms".
