I’m not seeing that happen. The ATC has much bigger fish to fry, that it is currently ignoring entirely.
Also, if history has taught me anything about military units and unauthorised badges, the more you squeeze them, the more the units will fight to hold onto what’s theirs.
Good luck with your project, but I think you’re going to be up against it.
As I say, I’m much more focussed on carrot, and with so many units wanting to engage on those grounds, there’s much for me to do!
Not really. Permission and trademark doesn’t have anything to do with this.
We do not have a policy that approves units creating and using unauthorised motifs. Because they’re unauthorised.
The only thing we currently have, in a policy all about authorised badges and protocol, is a short para saying “if you’re going to break the rules, please at least break them this way”.
So legal question who does the badge belong to? Both pre & post college of arms approval
Does it belong to the ATC Sqn unit commanded by the OC appointed by HQAC
Or does it belong to the civilian committee trust responsible for the non-public aspects of the Sqn cf. Sqn SOV, Sqn inventory & other Sqn marketing?
This is on our list, I engaged Q1 24 might have even been Q4 23 but nil response from HQ so it fell off the list.
What’s the timeline from application to receiving the badge?
You lost me with that one haha.
Ultimately these belong physically to the units that have them granted. And the official painting goes on their property book (sent to HQ if disbanded, returned on request if reformed).
At the moment, I don’t know.
But I have taken one badge to the point I’m ready to try getting it through RAF Ceremonial in under three days.
Another unit has an unauthorised motif I see absolutely no issue with, and I’ve drafted the provisional essay today.
I can be sure I can do my bit quickly (although some units may be really tricky because they don’t know what they want and there’s no obvious inspiration laying around).
When it goes to the College of Arms, it goes into a queue. I have no idea how long that is. I’ll start to get an idea for that once the wheels are turning.
Please do email me if you’d like to pick it up. I’m starting with the easier ones so I can really take a chunk out of the backlog.
So another carrot it’s a good way to preserve unit number & location to avoid reallocation.
Does the granting of the badge also grant the copyright / intellectual property?
In short can we issue a cease & desist instruction.
The reason why I ask whether it is civcom or the Oc the Sqn that holds the right is this copyright issue of who decides what it can used on / in conjunction with.
Agreed. Authorised brings many benefits.
Copyright and intellectual property belongs to the unit (though I confess with legal language I’m not on sure footing).
The squadron owns it. It’s the identity.
I would say that’s firmly in the sqn OC’s hands as the leader, but if you have one of these civ coms who seems to insist on running their own brief, I think they’d be fine putting the badge on something for which they’re legitimately spending unit funds.
I think that will be the distinction now I think of it.
With regular RAF units it will be authorised public funds used to register the badge so it would belong to the RAF & the crown.
With ATC sqns, it will be non-public funds used to register so it will belong to the committee trust for the squadron (default to wing, region or national committee should the Sqn cease)
I’m out of my depth, but that sounds like a reasonable interpretation.
SO2 Badges & Protocol (SO2 B&P)
I think that might be your stick & carrot to continue.
If it’s unregistered it belongs to the RAF & RAFAC so they can order that it’s not to be used.
If it’s register (& ergo compliant) it’s owned by the civcom.
This might convince/motivate the civcoms who’ve been asked to change the badge but have said “no” to consider alternatives.
But unfortunately you will now be dealing with the committee arms of the organisation.
I just don’t see the organisation having the political will to have such a clampdown, or the resources to do the enforcement.
I concur, nor the political influence to enforce at unit level.
No disrespect to @OC.1324 but if was really important to HQAC they wouldn’t have tasked it to a volunteer but to a paid staff member.
Not to be confused with SO2 BNP, which is very different 
I assume something radiological with British Nuclear Power? 
This is certainly not a priority for the organisation.
This is the type of role that works well for a volunteer. It isn’t business essential, but can make a huge difference to units and the wider organisation in the right hands.
Hypothetical enforcement doesn’t need excessive resources.
We don’t worry about the resource required for dress regs, behavioural standards etc. it’s just an attitude shift.
The more units have authorised badges and the better-educated everyone is about how it all works, the more difficult it will become (very slowly over time) to break from the correct custom without social pressure.
I think this website will help
They seem to take the ATC badge the stumble across & convert into acceptable versions. It will certainly make it easier for you to get the wing badges all sorted.
You need a post in the weekly sharepoint update or just an all unit email (including civcom chair) & it will start aligning to what your hope to achieve.
This is a great resource (although it contains unauthorised badges too).
I really want to make successful comms with the owner, as standardising the format of electronic versions would be awesome.