wearing other family tartan rather than your own

[Tobus]

As to the suggestion that "...unless a tartan is registered with the Lyon there is NO legal status accorded to it," I would suggest that one could take the view that an unregistered tartan is no different than an unregistered motorcar. A lack of registration does not, in itself, necessarily imply a lack of ownership.

Um, I wouldn't take it that far. You're mixing two subjects: physical property and intellectual property.

Physical property needn't be "registered" in order to be legally owned. Intellectual property, however, usually does. That's what trademarks, copyrights, and even (in a lesser sense) the registering of tartans are for.

That minor point aside, I do think it's an interesting subject and I'd love to see more on this pending case which you mentioned very vaguely.

[SlackerDrummer]

Two points here: First, both a clan badge and a clan tartan are recognized as signs or symbols of belonging to a specific family or clan, hence both are known by their clan or family name.

A clan badge may be a symbol of belonging to a clan. It does not, however, belong to the clan. It is rightfully, and lawfully, the property of the chief. What possible legal precedent is there to show or claim ownership by a person or entity of "clan" tartans ascribed as such less than 200 years ago?

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

People are not, in my humble opinion, heritable objects.

With all due respect I believe that some on this thread are, perhaps, woefully uninformed as to what is, exactly, the nature of a clan, and how it relates to its chief and chieftains.

From what has been posted in the past it often appears that individuals sometime launch into vituperative attacks on long deceased generations of chiefs based on sources drawn from popular fiction, rebel songs, or a personal sense of "justice and fair play". While I can accept one's emotional responses (and, indeed, the way in which they were brought up in their own homes) as a valid reaction to what they perceive to have been said, I feel that it would be a good thing if people were to approach the subject of chiefs, clans, and clanship, from a position of greater knowledge and understanding.

As a starting point, I would suggest that anyone who questions that a clan is "heritable" read chapters I and V of Adam's The Clans, Septs & Regiments of the Scottish Highlands. Likewise, they should read Sir Thomas Innes of Learney's book, The Tartans of the Clans and Families of Scotland. Both authors clearly explain the heritable relationship between the chief and his clan.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

A clan badge may be a symbol of belonging to a clan. It does not, however, belong to the clan. It is rightfully, and lawfully, the property of the chief. What possible legal precedent is there to show or claim ownership by a person or entity of "clan" tartans ascribed as such less than 200 years ago?

PM sent.