Old 2013 USPTO trademark resurfaces sparking confusion, with some wrongly claiming XRP had US approval. Ripple’s filing shows brand protection only, not government recognition, yet debate fuels speculation in crypto circles. A United States trademark registration dating back more than a decade has reignited debate around XRP’s status as a payment method. The certificate, which [...]]]>Old 2013 USPTO trademark resurfaces sparking confusion, with some wrongly claiming XRP had US approval. Ripple’s filing shows brand protection only, not government recognition, yet debate fuels speculation in crypto circles. A United States trademark registration dating back more than a decade has reignited debate around XRP’s status as a payment method. The certificate, which [...]]]>

U.S. Trademark Filing Sparks Debate Over XRP as a Payment Method

  • Old 2013 USPTO trademark resurfaces sparking confusion, with some wrongly claiming XRP had US approval.
  • Ripple’s filing shows brand protection only, not government recognition, yet debate fuels speculation in crypto circles.

A United States trademark registration dating back more than a decade has reignited debate around XRP’s status as a payment method. The certificate, which resurfaced recently, was first issued on December 31, 2013, by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office under Registration Number 4,458,993.

OpenCoin, Inc., later known as Ripple Labs, had initially filed the application on May 17, 2013. The records indicate that the trademark applied to International Class 36, which includes financial services. The description indicated that XRP was intended for secure payment options across global networks using both digital as well as conventional currencies.

Ripple had made its first commercial use of XRP on March 1, 2013. The registration was limited to the name “XRP” in standard character, meaning it served as a service mark for financial dealings rather than identification of the token as a regulated payment network

U.S. Trademark Filing Sparks Debate Over XRP as a Payment MethodSource: uspto.gov

Ripple’s 2013 Registration Sparks Misleading Claims

The resurfaced registration has stirred up speculation within the crypto space. Certain holders took the filing as a form of official U.S. government endorsement of XRP as an accepted mode of payment. Community influencer Amelia even went so far as to suggest that

Influencer JackTheRippler posted similar commentary,  bolstering the idea of government backing. A review of official records, however, does not support that assertion.

Verifications from Justia Trademarks, uspto.report, and Trademarksoncall.com all present the same information: serial number 85935696, owner as Ripple Labs, and registration as confirmed on December 31, 2013.

UC Davis Law Review has also cited the registration, and USPTO’s Trademark Status and Document Retrieval system includes the mark as active, frequently updated, and kept by Ripple. It establishes ownership but serves not to translate into official acknowledgement of XRP as a recognized U.S. payment tool.

Although current controversy could be the result of overinterpreting, the filing still denotes Ripple’s initial moves in safeguarding its intellectual property. Records indicate that the company has 39 patents in the United States, and the government has issued 18. More than 62% of these patents are active, emphasizing Ripple’s long-term legal foothold in financial technology.

Ripple has continued to safeguard its brand with more recent initiatives, including applying for a trademark for covering its proprietary stablecoin RLUSD in 2023. These applications are more branding tools rather than endorsements from regulators.

At the trade level, XRP is at $2.88, recording a 0.39% decline in the past 24 hours. Trading volume declined by 13.35% in the same period, reaching 16.5 billion.

]]>
Market Opportunity
Moonveil Logo
Moonveil Price(MORE)
$0.002002
$0.002002$0.002002
+2.71%
USD
Moonveil (MORE) Live Price Chart
Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

The Surprising 2025 Decline In Online Interest Despite Market Turmoil

The Surprising 2025 Decline In Online Interest Despite Market Turmoil

The post The Surprising 2025 Decline In Online Interest Despite Market Turmoil appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Bitcoin Searches Plunge: The Surprising 2025
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2026/01/21 14:56
Ethereum Name Service price prediction 2026-2032: Is ENS a good investment?

Ethereum Name Service price prediction 2026-2032: Is ENS a good investment?

Key takeaways: The Ethereum Name Service is a network that enables crypto enthusiasts to rename their cryptocurrency addresses into something simpler, making them
Share
Cryptopolitan2026/01/18 00:18
Cryptos Signal Divergence Ahead of Fed Rate Decision

Cryptos Signal Divergence Ahead of Fed Rate Decision

The post Cryptos Signal Divergence Ahead of Fed Rate Decision appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Crypto assets send conflicting signals ahead of the Federal Reserve’s September rate decision. On-chain data reveals a clear decrease in Bitcoin and Ethereum flowing into centralized exchanges, but a sharp increase in altcoin inflows. The findings come from a Tuesday report by CryptoQuant, an on-chain data platform. The firm’s data shows a stark divergence in coin volume, which has been observed in movements onto centralized exchanges over the past few weeks. Bitcoin and Ethereum Inflows Drop to Multi-Month Lows Sponsored Sponsored Bitcoin has seen a dramatic drop in exchange inflows, with the 7-day moving average plummeting to 25,000 BTC, its lowest level in over a year. The average deposit per transaction has fallen to 0.57 BTC as of September. This suggests that smaller retail investors, rather than large-scale whales, are responsible for the recent cash-outs. Ethereum is showing a similar trend, with its daily exchange inflows decreasing to a two-month low. CryptoQuant reported that the 7-day moving average for ETH deposits on exchanges is around 783,000 ETH, the lowest in two months. Other Altcoins See Renewed Selling Pressure In contrast, other altcoin deposit activity on exchanges has surged. The number of altcoin deposit transactions on centralized exchanges was quite steady in May and June of this year, maintaining a 7-day moving average of about 20,000 to 30,000. Recently, however, that figure has jumped to 55,000 transactions. Altcoins: Exchange Inflow Transaction Count. Source: CryptoQuant CryptoQuant projects that altcoins, given their increased inflow activity, could face relatively higher selling pressure compared to BTC and ETH. Meanwhile, the balance of stablecoins on exchanges—a key indicator of potential buying pressure—has increased significantly. The report notes that the exchange USDT balance, around $273 million in April, grew to $379 million by August 31, marking a new yearly high. CryptoQuant interprets this surge as a reflection of…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 01:01