Meghan Markle’s bid to build a global lifestyle brand is running into two powerful obstacles: trademark failures in the United States and royal protocol guarded by King Charles. Her label, As Ever, launched with strong buzz, but its limits trace directly to rules preventing commercial use of royal titles. Let’s look into what sparked this standoff.
What’s Going On
Meghan Markle is pursuing a long-term plan to transform As Ever into a major lifestyle player. However, her first brand name, American Riviera Orchard, was rejected by the USPTO for being too closely associated with Santa Barbara. The pivot name As Ever was then partially blocked. This early friction shaped everything that followed.
The Players Involved
The USPTO is at the center of the legal setbacks, while Buckingham Palace guards long-standing rules on royal commercial conduct. Existing business owners, including ASEVER in China and As Ever NYC in New York, added trademark conflicts. Their involvement complicated Meghan’s entry into the apparel market. Another key voice soon joined the fray.
A Brand Collides With Protocol
Buckingham Palace maintains authority over how royal titles can be used. The rule is clear: titles cannot generate private profit. This tradition created a barrier for any Sussex-branded merchandise. After King Charles removed Prince Andrew’s peerage in October through Letters Patent, the seriousness of this boundary became more visible. It raised a sharper question.
The Royal Boundary
The rule restricting commercial use of titles is not new. It was reinforced during the Sandringham Summit agreement in January 2020, which banned the use of Sussex Royal for business. That limitation stayed in place when Meghan launched As Ever. Royal experts say enforcement is now stricter than ever. This brings us to the legal trouble far from London.
What Happened At The USPTO
American Riviera Orchard was refused in August 2024 because the USPTO found it to be primarily geographically descriptive. When Meghan’s team pivoted to As Ever, July brought a partial rejection this year. The examiner ruled that As Ever was too similar to ASEVER, a Shenzhen-based clothing manufacturer. This ruling had significant consequences for her ambitions.
A Forced Retreat
To keep the trademark alive, Meghan’s lawyers had to delete apparel from the application. Removing clothing cut out one of the most lucrative categories. Losing that segment instantly limited growth potential for As Ever. It also highlighted how vulnerable a brand becomes without strong trademark protection. Effects soon showed in public reaction.
A Confusing Rebrand
Consumers saw a sudden shift from American Riviera Orchard to As Ever, with many wondering why the apparel never launched. The brand sold jams, candles, and linens, but the absence of clothing created uncertainty. Early inventory sold out in minutes, yet the long-term rollout slowed. This confusion is tied directly back to the legal limitations. Another pressure point was growing behind the scenes.
Netflix’s High Stakes
Netflix renewed its deal with the Sussexes in August with fresh requirements. The new agreement, valued at a potential forty million dollars, connected content output to the success of Meghan’s lifestyle brand and her show, With Love, Meghan. This made the trademark setback especially costly. Digital performance later highlighted the scale of the challenge.
Digital Traffic Trouble
By November, Asever.com recorded around 196,000 visits, while Goop drew more than 800,000. The gap highlighted the difficulty for As Ever to rival established competitors. Similarweb data marked this difference clearly. These numbers reinforced why every category matters in a lifestyle empire. The financial stakes were also considerable.
The Three Hundred Million Question
Analysts describe the figure as an opportunity cost. A global Sussex lifestyle brand with clothing, beauty, and home goods could be valued near companies like Goop or Jessica Alba’s Honest Company. Restricting As Ever to jams and linens places it closer to a small business. This pressure shaped how observers viewed her ambitions.
The Quote Driving Attention
Royal commentator Emily Andrews said last month, “Meghan wants to become a billionaire… but making jam might be just the beginning, and she needs to take her brand to the highest level.” The comment captured public expectations for As Ever. It also reflected criticism over the limitations that shaped the brand. That conversation led many to revisit the timeline.
A Timeline Of Setbacks
The Sandringham Summit in January 2020 set the initial restrictions. August 2024 brought the first USPTO refusal. July 2025 delivered the partial rejection for As Ever. In August 2025, Netflix’s renewed requirements were added. In October, King Charles used Letters Patent. Each date marked a step in the tightening environment around the brand. Geography factored into the difficulties, too.
Geography Becomes A Trap
American Riviera refers to Santa Barbara, and that connection undermined the original trademark. Trademark law under the Lanham Act requires proof that the brand is more famous than the location, something Meghan’s team could not show. Montecito’s strong identity made this impossible. That failure helped push the pivot to As Ever. Then another battlefield emerged.
The Owners Blocking Her Path
ASEVER in China sells apparel to major retailers like H&M and held an earlier trademark. Their presence prevented As Ever from using its preferred categories. Meanwhile, As Ever NYC owner Mark Kolski publicly clarified he was not affiliated with Meghan. These conflicts created recurring setbacks. Collectively, they illustrated how crowded trademark space can be. Still, another force carried even more weight.
How The Royal Veto Functions
The royal veto operates through expectation rather than written law. Meghan could technically place the word Duchess on clothing, but doing so would breach the 2020 agreement. King Charles holds the authority to remove titles through Letters Patent. His decision regarding Prince Andrew confirmed that he is willing to act. This creates a silent ceiling around her business.
Why The King’s Position Holds
The monarchy argues that allowing commercial use of titles could cheapen the institution. The rule protects the royal brand from becoming a private revenue source. From this perspective, King Charles is not blocking jam sales but enforcing continuity. The restriction just happens to collide with the most profitable direction for As Ever. These forces create the standoff central to the story.
Where It Stands Now
As Ever continues to sell home goods but remains barred from apparel and any Sussex-branded merchandise. Trademark limits, royal protocol, and intense competition keep the brand far from the $300 million potential often discussed by analysts. The future depends on whether Meghan adapts or challenges these boundaries. For now, the constraints remain firmly in place.
Sources
USPTO trademark filings and Office Actions for American Riviera Orchard and As Ever (August 2024, July 2025)
Buckingham Palace Spring 2020 Transition Statement
Similarweb digital traffic data for Asever.com and Goop.com (October 2025)
Daily Mail reporting by Emily Andrews (November 2025)
New York Post reporting on ASEVER and As Ever NYC trademark conflict (February 2025)
RadarOnline brand performance reporting (December 2025)
Finance Monthly analysis of Netflix renewal (November 2025)