Quote Originally Posted by MacMillan of Rathdown View Post
Presumably the suit would take place in the jurisdiction where the tort took place. One party (presumably the substantive armiger) would have to establish that some sort of injury or loss occurred because the assumptive armiger was trespassing on the intellectual property rights that are inherent within a personal mark of identification, such as a coat of arms or a cattle brand.

Other than in Scotland, where the mis-use of arms is a criminal offense (defrauding the government of statutory fees), a suit of this sort would be heard in civil court.
Exactly. One would have to establish that damages occurred which would be very difficult unless 1) the grantee's arms were used in commerce and 2) the usurper's use of the arms had an impact on the grantee's business. And even then, I'm not sure a court would rule in favor of the grantee unless the actual image of the arms used by the usurper was one lifted from the grantee. I'm not sure, based on current American copyright or trademark law, that an original emblazonment owned by the usurper would be seen by the court as being the same as the grantee's.