Texas Precious Metals, one of the country’s largest precious metals dealers and the operator of a rapidly expanding private bullion brand, has filed legal challenges against the State of Texas Acting Comptroller of Public Accounts, the Administrator of an agency managed by the Comptroller’s Office, state officials, and state contractors, accusing them of unlawfully appropriating Texas Precious Metals’ federally protected trademarks — one of which is a distinctive geographic outline of the state — and exceeding legislative authority by entering the minting business.
At issue is a newly launched series of official “State of Texas coins,” introduced under the auspices of the Texas Bullion Depository, the state-administered institution overseen by the Comptroller’s Office, which is charged with serving as the “custodian, guardian, and administrator of certain bullion and specie.”
Texas House Bill 483 authorizes the state to create promotional items on behalf of the depository, but Texas Precious Metals argues that the depository was never empowered to become a mint to design, manufacture, market, and distribute bullion to collectors and investors — much less to do so worldwide, “at competitive prices,” in direct competition with private firms that have built their businesses in the same marketplace.
To the company, the conflict is not merely about branding; it is about picking winners and losers. It is a test of limits that begs the question, “How far can a state government go when it steps into the currents of private enterprise?”
A business built on trust and a mark
Few industries rely on reputation as heavily as bullion. Gold and silver products, unlike consumer goods, trade on authenticity, provenance, and trust — often signaled by the smallest engraving.
For years, Texas Precious Metals has used the outline of the state of Texas as its privy mark (the bullion industry’s equivalent of a mint signature) stamped on coins, rounds, bars, and gold notes produced through its private minting operation, Texas Mint.
The company says over 4 million products bearing that mark are currently in circulation, making the symbol one of the most recognizable identifiers in the American precious metals trade. Its reach has extended beyond direct sales, with major retailers — including JM Bullion in Dallas — distributing Texas Mint products nationwide.
Federal trademark law meets state power
The primary trademarks in dispute are registered federally under International Class 14, the category that includes precious metals, coins, and bullion products.
“Texas Precious Metals does not claim ownership of the outline of Texas as an abstract symbol on all items,” company executives note. “But under the Lanham Act,” the company argues, “the mark is protected in precisely the context in which the state has now deployed it: commercial bullion products marketed to consumers.”
Trademark law has long recognized that geographic imagery can acquire enforceable distinctiveness through widespread association. Brands such as Kentucky Fried Chicken, California Pizza Kitchen, and Texas Roadhouse, as well as numerous professional sports franchises, illustrate how place-based symbols can become powerful commercial identifiers.
Texas Precious Metals argues that the state government has crossed into that same protected terrain.
The state’s new coin program
The legal dispute intensified following the Comptroller’s launch of the Texas Lone Star Coins and Modern Texas Redback Gold Notes program — a high-profile expansion of Texas’s bullion presence.
In an official announcement, Acting Comptroller Kelly Hancock framed the initiative as a state-sponsored program. “They are meticulously crafted under the direction of the Texas Bullion Depository and the state of Texas,” Mr. Hancock said.
The Texas Bullion Depository has promoted the coins as both a market offering and a cultural emblem. Macy Douglas, the depository’s administrator, described the products as a “new program” in the same official announcement, aligning bullion investment with the state’s self-image of autonomy.
Coins such as the State of Texas 2025 1 oz Silver Coin are now listed through official platforms and presented as “authorized commemorative precious metal products” for investors and collectors.
A powerful argument for an ultra vires claim
At the core of Texas Precious Metals’ lawsuit against the Acting Comptroller and his Administrator is an ultra vires claim that state officials have acted outside the authority granted by the Legislature.
“The statute establishing the Texas Bullion Depository does not authorize the creation of a state-sponsored mint,” contends Tarek Saab, the company’s Chief Executive Officer. “The state is openly competing in the private sector.”
Mr. Saab argues that the profits flow not to taxpayers but to contractors operating under government affiliation, making them “privatized gains sheltered by public legitimacy,” he says.
The suit frames the matter as more than a narrow trademark dispute. It is, as Texas Precious Metals insists, a question of market fairness, property rights, and the principle that government power has limits, even (and perhaps especially) in Texas.
A test case in Texas identity
Legal observers say the case could reverberate beyond the bullion industry, raising broader questions about the role of state-sponsored commercial enterprises and whether government entities can be held accountable under the same trademark standards as private competitors.
For Texas Precious Metals, the battle is not only about an outline pressed into gold and silver. It is about an incontestable federal trademark versus state overreach.
And so, from Shiner, just 18 miles from Gonzales and the site of one of the state’s most enduring revolutionary slogans, the company has revived an old rallying cry: “Come and take it.”
