Filed on Nov. 6, a filing for the trademark “PayString” gives scant information as to which business or product will be marketed under its canopy. Indeed, the trademark registration description is identical to that used for Ripple’s “ripplenet” filing earlier this year.
According to this description, PayString covers the span of different categories of electronic financial services: the use of fiat and digital currencies for remittances and gifts; receiving and disbursing electronic payments in fiat and digital currency; currency exchange services, again fiat and digital currency; financial transaction verification services; and financial management and administration services for the transmission of digital currency via electronic communication networks.
In August, Ripple filed a further two trademark applications with USPTO that included the same application descriptions as ripplenet and PayString. A filling for another, Ripple Impact, sought, by contrast, to cover categories of charitable foundation services.
While the company busies itself with registering new trademarks in the U.S., a longstanding controversy has this week resurfaced. The well-known trader and chart analyst Peter Brandt argued that the U.S. securities regulator, the Securities and Exchange Commission would have declared XRP a security if it “understood cryptos”: