Getting a COA registered

[SlackerDrummer]

Kenneth, in those quotes you've selected the topic really was "coincidentally identical arms, and who the courts might consider to be the rightful owner of said devisal". You are reading far to much into what I have posted. As far as it being "a gross mischaracterization of what it means to assume arms" (that they usurp the rights of granted arms) I don't believe that I have directly spoken on this particular point at length, and I certainly haven't said that assumed arms, for whatever reason, always trespass on the rights of substantive armigers. (I know for a fact that you, and the others in your group, go out of your way to make sure that any devisals you may come up with are as clean as a hound dog's tooth. But that's really not the larger issue, as I see it.)

Thanks for the kind words and the clarification.

What has been discussed, is the legal vs. quasi-legal status of substantive vs. assumed arms.

Having been deposed as an expert witness in a suit over a specific type of moveable intellectual property which closely parallels armoury, it has been my experience that the courts in the United States look to the date of first registration-- even if it was last week-- as the proof of ownership.

The specifics of the case involved a clan society (naturally) and an "armorial logotype". As it happened, there was a split in the society and an argument ensued over the ownership of the logotype. Ultimately the original group sued the splinter group and the whole thing went to court. The plaintiff's case collapsed when the defendants produced a copy of their trademark registration (a document that grants exclusive use of a well-defined design to a single individual or group, in approximately the same way a grant of arms confirms exclusive rights to the armiger). The position of the court, in this instance, was that the first to register the design was the owner.

Having been an expert witness then, you know full well the hugely significant difference between a registered trademark and even a piece of copyrighted artwork. As a coat of arms in this country is barely (if at all) protected by copyright law (except for a specific exemplification thereof), you can appreciate how much more difficult it would be to hold said coat of arms up to the standard of a trademark.

As you have said, it is the date of registration that matters. What you neglected to say is the date of registration with whom. In this case, it would be the United States Patent and Trademark Office under the Department of Commerce, not a foreign heraldic authority. And the reason that a trademark is registered with the Department of Commerce is because it has to be used in commerce. A personal coat of arms cannot be registered as a trademark unless it is used in one's business and therefor it has none of the legal protection of a trademark.