The Comptroller-General of Customs has forwarded, for advice, the following memorandum:

The lists of persons authorised to use the Royal Arms, published in the London Gazette of 1.1.15, are prefixed by a note that holders of warrants of appointment are not authorised to use the word 'Royal'.

2. A printed memorandum obtained from the Lord Steward's Department by the High Commissioner's Office setting out the privileges conferred by warrants of appointment granted by the Lord Steward is attached. The tradesmen may make use of a representation of the Royal Arms in connection with their businesses provided that the words 'By Appointment' appear in every instance immediately underneath same. The warrant, however, does not carry with it the right to fly the royal standard or to use the word 'Royal' or to make use of the Arms as a trade mark.

3. As it is understood that the words 'By Royal Appointment' are used in a considerable number of cases it might be deemed necessary to obtain advice from the Attorney-General's Department as to whether the use of the word 'Royal' is permissible in that context.

The memorandum from the Lord Steward's Department provides amongst other things that the privilege of making use of a representation of the Royal Arms may be exercised by authorised persons only if the words 'By Appointment' appear beneath the representation, and that the privilege does not carry with it the right to use the word 'Royal'.

The fact that the memorandum specifically states that the words 'By Appointment' must be used, seems to indicate that there is no alternative, if the privilege is to be lawfully exercised, and that the use of the words 'By Royal Appointment' would not amount to compliance with the instructions issued by the Lord Steward's Department.

This view is, I think, strengthened by the subsequent instructions which disallow the use of the word 'Royal'.

The words 'to use the word "Royal"' in my opinion mean 'to use the word "Royal" in connection with the business or any part of the business of the authorised person' and such use would not, therefore, be permissible, in any context, on the goods of such person.

In my opinion, the question asked should be answered in the negative.

[Vol. 14, p. 299]

1. This date is attributed. The opinion is undated in the Opinion Book, but its position, in relation to adjacent opinions, suggests a date towards the end of January I916.