Making your Markle: Royal emblems and souvenirs

Plates, bags, dolls and even swimsuits are just some of the items on sale to commemorate the wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. However, UK law has specific rules for the registration and use of Royal emblems that souvenir manufacturers and retailers need to consider.

Although these UK rules do not apply in the United States (or elsewhere), there are international laws that might affect the use of some of these Royal emblems outside the UK.

Use of Royal emblems on souvenirs in the UK

Souvenir manufacturers need to ensure that consumers are not misled into believing that the Royal Family has commissioned or otherwise endorsed their souvenirs. A breach of the rules, contained within section 99 of the Trade Marks Act 1994, can result in a fine of up to £500, as well as the products being removed from sale. Section 12 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 goes further, prohibiting sellers from giving any false indication that they have Royal approval, with a fine of up to £400 and a potential prison sentence.

The Lord Chamberlain’s office gives consent on behalf of the Royal Family for the use of signs containing Royal marks and sets out some general guidelines on what is permissible. Following usual custom, it has relaxed these rules temporarily for the upcoming wedding. The relaxation allows commercial use of Prince Harry’s Coat of Arms and approved photographs of the couple on souvenirs. These items must be permanent in nature and specifically designed for the occasion, incorporating a commemorative phrase to that effect. They should also be:

  • In good taste;
  • Free from advertisement; and
  • Carry no implication of Royal custom or approval.

Notably, not all textiles qualify as souvenirs: only carpets, cushions, wall hangings and headscarves. For those selling commemorative t-shirts or tea towels, this means that there is no guarantee of immunity against legal action by the Royal Family.

The approved photographs can be obtained from photographic agencies, but use of the official engagement photos is prohibited. Likewise, Prince Harry’s Coat of Arms should not be flown as a flag and cannot be used on containers or packaging. The temporary relaxation also makes clear manufacturers of souvenir tins, mugs or other receptacles need to print their name on the inside or the bottom of the container or its lid and ensure that it is not externally visible during ordinary use.

Businesses should be aware that section 55 of the Companies Act 2006 makes it an offence to include certain words within their company name, such as Royal, King, Queen, Prince, Princess, His or Her Majesty, without approval from the Secretary of State.

Considerations for those trading outside the UK

International sellers need to consider local laws and treaties governing the use and trade mark registration of Royal emblems abroad. Thai law, for example, prohibits the registration of trade marks consisting of or containing national flags. Some countries also recognise the crime of lèse-majesté. This is an offense against the dignity of the sovereign or the state, which could include using images of Royals in a disrespectful way on merchandise. Lèse-majesté is no longer a crime in the UK, meaning that the Royal Family must use other laws to protect their rights, but it nevertheless remains a consideration in other jurisdictions.

Under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention, states which are party to the treaty must prohibit the use of, as well as refuse or invalidate the registration of armorial bearings, flags and other state emblems if authorization by the relevant body has not been granted. Convention states must communicate their protected emblems to WIPO to include them on a publicly available exhaustive list. This extends the impact of UK prohibitions on the use of Royal emblems to all states which are party to the Paris Convention, including the US.

Use of Royal images in advertising in the UK

The Advertising Standards Authority provides specific guidance on the use of Royal images in advertising (see also its recent FAQs on the upcoming wedding). In general, unless you are advertising a book or an article about a member of the Royal Family, you should neither show nor mention members of the Royal Family in advertising without permission. As with all advertising, the souvenir product should be accurately depicted to avoid misleading consumers.

Registering Royal emblems as UK trade marks

Any attempt to register a mark which consists of or contains one of the specially protected emblems listed in section 4 of the 1994 Act will receive an objection from the UK IPO. The list of Royal emblems is as follows:

  1. The Royal arms;
  2. Representations of the Royal crown or Royal flags;
  3. Representations of members of the Royal Family;
  4. Words, letters or devices likely to lead people to believe that the applicant has Royal patronage or authorization.

To overcome such objections applicants will need to secure consent from the Lord Chamberlain’s office. The general guidelines produced by the office also contain useful examples of prohibited and permitted crowns, as well as lists of Royal names and residences which cannot be used in trade mark applications.

How strictly are the rules enforced?

With regards to trade mark applications, the UK IPO does issue objections to those containing a Royal emblem. The only way around this is by securing consent. However, this will require the applicant to add a limitation to their application and sign a consent agreement based on standard wording, often including a condition that the goods or services are of a certain quality. This is a commercial contract, so applicants should carefully consider whether the use of a Royal emblem is necessary for their branding.

However, those selling souvenirs are more likely to use Royal emblems on their products than they are to apply for a trade mark. Crucially, the UK IPO has no involvement in relation to the use of Royal emblems and the Royal Family’s control is more limited. In practice, the Royals are also unlikely to take action against souvenir manufacturers: it is in their interest for the public to celebrate the Royal wedding and for the economy to benefit from the event. Whilst this does not preclude action being taken when the rules above are breached, it does reduce the commercial risk.


Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author as of the time of publication and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of Read more.

Join the Discussion

One comment so far.

  • [Avatar for Joachim Martillo]
    Joachim Martillo
    May 19, 2018 12:03 pm

    Because there has been so much discussion of Meghan Markle’s biracial ancestry, it is worthwhile to point out that the British royal family already has Arab-Berber heritage.

    The House of Windsor changed its name from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha during WW1. Thus the British Royals belong to a branch of the House of Wettin, which ruled Bavaria. Bavaria has historically been a major center of science and technological invention with the German speaking world. (The German Museum is located in Munich.)

    It is interesting that in one case we find an American inventor, who emigrated from the USA to Bavaria and bucked the general reverse trend of an increasing number of inventors emigrating from Europe to the USA. This inventor was Benjamin Thompson of Woburn, Massachusetts, Count Rumford of Bavaria.

    Thompson was a loyalist during the War of Independence. He provided much useful intelligence to the British forces, abandoned his wife on the victory of the colonies, and fled to Europe.

    Thompson had an impressive record of artillery improvements; almost all by himself created the science of thermodynamics; developed a good number of inventions relating to furnaces, kilns, or chimneys; and was an early nutritionist.

    The US government made an offer for him to become the first superintendent of West Point.

    I have found two different stories that explain why this appointment never took place.

    In one story, Thompson demanded to receive a rank of general equal to that of George Washington, but the US government could not possibly have given a former loyalist such a rank. In the other story, Thompson declined because he was just too busy and had too many obligations in Europe.

    Eventually, Thompson’s first wife died. He married Madame Lavoisier and had lots of fun in Paris. Madame Lavoisier was the widow of Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier, who is popularly known as the father of “modern chemistry.”

    Antoine was a great scientist but not such a great guy. He funded his science by actions that were close to extortion. Lavoisier may have deserved execution during the Reign of Terror.

    Renowned creators and inventors are not always the most ethical of people, but I hope Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have a great life together.