The Duchess of Sussex launched her lifestyle brand in the spring of 2025

The Duchess of Sussex continues to face obstacles in securing trademark protection for her lifestyle venture As Ever within the United States, nearly two years after submitting her original paperwork.

Prince Harry's wife has now received a second six-month extension from the US Patent and Trademark Office to finalise her application.

According to a legal document cited by The Mail, the USPTO informed the applicant: "Applicant's second request for Extension of Time to File a Statement of Use has been granted."

The notice further warned that extension requests must be submitted every six months until completion, otherwise the application faces abandonment.

The USPTO partially turned down Meghan's trademark bid owing to a conflict with ASEVER, a Chinese clothing manufacturer already operating under a similar name.

This clash forced the duchess's legal team to amend their submission, stripping out all clothing-related items from the application.

By narrowing the scope of their filing, Meghan's representatives were able to continue pursuing trademark protection for the remaining approved product categories.

The brand name emerged following a rebrand from her previous venture, American Riviera Orchard, though the transition has proven far from straightforward in her home country's regulatory system.

Despite her domestic trademark troubles, the duchess has achieved considerable success in registering the As Ever brand internationally.

Australia has granted her 12 separate trademarks spanning diverse product categories including homeware, jewellery, stationery, food items, candles, and skincare.

The brand has also obtained trademark protection across four additional markets: Canada, New Zealand, Mexico, and the United Kingdom.

These international victories stand in stark contrast to the prolonged difficulties Meghan has encountered with American regulators, where her application remains incomplete and subject to ongoing extension requirements.

The disparity highlights how trademark processes can vary significantly between jurisdictions, even for identical brand applications.