{"id":111960,"date":"2020-11-13T15:21:57","date_gmt":"2020-11-13T12:21:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/en.buradabiliyorum.com\/ripple-files-for-yet-another-new-trademark-in-the-us\/"},"modified":"2020-11-13T15:21:57","modified_gmt":"2020-11-13T12:21:57","slug":"ripple-files-for-yet-another-new-trademark-in-the-us","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/ripple-files-for-yet-another-new-trademark-in-the-us\/","title":{"rendered":"# Ripple files for yet another new trademark in the US"},"content":{"rendered":"

“# Ripple files for yet another new trademark in the US <\/strong>”
\n<\/p>\n

Ripple, the developer of various\u00a0XRP-based products, has filed yet another new trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO.<\/p>\n

Filed on Nov. 6, a filing<\/a> for the trademark \u201cPayString\u201d gives scant information as to which business or product will be marketed under its canopy. Indeed, the trademark registration descript<\/a>ion is identical<\/a> to that used for Ripple\u2019s \u201cRipplenet\u201d filing earlier this year.<\/p>\n

According to this description, PayString covers the span of different categories of electronic financial services: the use of fiat and digital currencies for remittances and gifts; receiving and disbursing electronic payments in fiat and digital currency; currency exchange services in fiat and digital currency; financial transaction verification services; and financial management and administration services for the transmission of digital currency via electronic communication networks.<\/p>\n

In August, Ripple filed a further two\u00a0trademark applications with USPTO that included the same application descriptions as Ripplenet and PayString. A filing<\/a> for another, Ripple Impact, sought to cover categories of charitable foundation services.<\/p>\n

While the company busies itself with registering new trademarks in the U.S., a longstanding controversy has resurfaced this week. The well-known\u00a0trader and chart analyst Peter Brandt argued that the U.S. securities regulator, the\u00a0Securities and Exchange Commission would have declared XRP a security if it \u201cunderstood cryptos\u201d:\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n

XRP would have been declared as a security if the SEC understood cryptos. This is a classic case of a market being manipulated by a bag-holder.<\/p>\n

\u2014 Peter Brandt (@PeterLBrandt) November 10, 2020<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n