Jihee is an experienced complex commercial litigator in Harris Bricken’s Portland and Los Angeles offices. She represents clients in business, intellectual property, and real estate matters. Having worked extensively in both federal and state courts, Jihee advises her clients from case intake through arbitration and trial.
We’re back with the newest part in our series on common California cannabis claims. Today, we’ll be covering one we often see in the context of buyer v. seller disputes: conversion. How does California define a conversion claim? The technical definition of conversion is “the wrongful exercise of dominion over the personal property of another.”
As a cannabis intellectual property litigator, part of my job is to help clients make cost-benefit and risk analyses. My colleagues and I have written several posts about the defense of “parody” in cannabis intellectual property litigation, and why it’s a very specific defense that people tend to overstretch in most cases. While that remains
Last week, a coalition of major food and beverage companies (self-identified as “consumer packaged goods companies”) asked Congress to do more about the growing number of copycat THC edible products and counterfeit trademarks piggybacking off of their well-known items. The letter was signed by the Consumer Brands Association and fourteen other associations and companies, including
Most people who are (luckily) not familiar with litigation believe alternative dispute resolution (or “ADR”) clauses in their contracts are essentially boilerplate language that’s recycled again and again in every contract. However, well-drafted ADR clauses can not only give you a huge advantage if an issue comes up, they may also cause your counterparty to
The days where the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) pays no mind to cannabis businesses (marijuana and hemp) are long gone. These days, the FTC is treating consumer complaints regarding hemp and marijuana businesses similar to complaints against businesses in other industries. The self-proclaimed mission of the FTC is to: “prevent anticompetitive, deceptive, and unfair business
When issues arise, many people think filing a lawsuit is the answer. That will initiate the litigation process, which will most likely involve an exchange of information and documents, the process of taking depositions, and probably some motion practice along the way. While in some cases it certainly is, we typically counsel new clients (and
OLCC rules are complex and change frequently, so compliance can be challenging and violations occur frequently. Over the years, we’ve represented clients in administrative proceedings across the west coast, and each system has its own quirks. Here are a few things to keep in mind if you find yourself in the process. Focus on compliance
We’ve written about the need for cannabis companies to mind the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”) before, and, as evidenced by a recent filing against Good Guy Vapes Int LLC (“Good Guy”), the complaints haven’t slowed down. Cannabis company operators large and small should be aware of the growing trend of federal class action
Last week, the TTAB, or Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, refused to register AgrotecHemp Corp.’s “PUREXXXCBD” as a trademark for dietary supplements containing cannabidiol because the product was unlawful. Specifically, AgrotecHemp sought registration for goods identified as: “Plant extracts for pharmaceutical purposes; vitamins; dietary supplements; all of the foregoing containing CBD solely derived from hemp
Do principals need to worry about personal exposure in cannabis intellectual property (IP) litigation? Surprisingly, the answer is sometimes “yes.” In this post, we will look at the “Borat” case as one example. First, it’s important to note that there are varying levels of liability that can be attributed to a cannabis company’s principals. In
