XRP Trademark Filing in 2013 Resurfaces, Misread as U.S. Recognition

TLDR

• The USPTO granted Ripple the XRP trademark registration in December 2013.
• Ripple filed the application in May 2013 under International Class 36 for financial services.
• The registration protects the XRP name as a service mark for secure payment options.
• The filing does not mean the U.S. government approved XRP as a payment method.
• Independent databases confirm Ripple remains the current owner of the XRP trademark.

The resurfacing of a U.S. trademark registration for XRP has reignited debate, but the certificate only protects its name. The registration, issued in December 2013, confirms Ripple’s ownership of the XRP service mark. However, some community figures mistakenly interpret the filing as government approval of XRP as a payment method.

XRP Trademark Registration Details

Ripple, then operating as OpenCoin, filed the XRP trademark with the USPTO on May 17, 2013. The application fell under International Class 36, covering financial services, including secure online transactions. Moreover, Ripple listed March 1, 2013, as the first commercial use of XRP.

The USPTO granted Registration Number 4,458,993 to Ripple on December 31, 2013. The filing protected XRP’s name in standard characters without design restrictions. Importantly, the registration applied only to XRP as a service mark for financial services.

Independent databases confirm the same details, including Justia Trademarks and uspto.report. Trademarksoncall.com lists Ripple as the current owner, with active status. Additionally, the USPTO TSDR system shows consistent renewals supporting Ripple’s continued ownership.

XRP Misinterpretations in the Community

Some influencers present the trademark as proof of official government endorsement of XRP. Community figure Amelia claimed the U.S. itself patented XRP as a payment method. Similarly, JackTheRippler suggested the filing confirmed official recognition in 2013.

Such interpretations misrepresent the purpose of the filing. The registration secured Ripple’s exclusive right to the XRP name in financial services. It did not grant regulatory approval, nor did it establish XRP as a government-backed currency.

Legal experts emphasize the difference between a trademark and regulatory recognition. “The certificate protects the brand name but does not imply approval,” independent analysts note. Consequently, XRP holders should not equate intellectual property filings with legal endorsements.

XRP and Ripple’s Broader Intellectual Property Strategy

The trademark highlights Ripple’s early move to establish intellectual property protections for XRP. In 2023, Ripple also filed for a trademark covering its stablecoin RLUSD. This demonstrates a consistent strategy of safeguarding product names.

Ripple’s broader portfolio includes multiple U.S. patents beyond XRP trademarks. Data confirms 39 filings, of which 18 have been granted. Reports further indicate over 62% of Ripple’s patents remain active.

Therefore, the reappearance of the XRP certificate underlines Ripple’s long-standing focus on legal protections. The document shows early efforts to protect XRP’s name but not special status. Ripple continues maintaining ownership, ensuring its brand remains legally secured.

The post XRP Trademark Filing in 2013 Resurfaces, Misread as U.S. Recognition appeared first on CoinCentral.