A few years ago I wrote a somewhat tongue-in-cheek blog post titled, “Cannabots – Are the Robots Coming For Your Weed,” which discussed the application of robotics to the cultivation of marijuana. In that post I cited several articles discussing the use of robots as farmers, restaurant workers, fashion models, and even lawyers. Just a
Welcome to Part 4 in our series on New York’s Cannabis Retail Dispensary Regulations. For prior posts in this series, check out the following: New York’s Cannabis Retail Dispensary Guidelines are Here! New York’s Cannabis Retail Dispensary Guidelines, Part 1: Dispensary Operations New York’s Cannabis Retail Dispensary Guidelines, Part 2: Security and Surveillance New York’s
Lawful use in commerce is a requirement for a trademark to be registered in the United States. For cannabis brands, this means that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will not register trademarks used in connection with products that are illegal under federal law, most notably marijuana. However, USPTO’s problematic approach to lawful
Cannabis brands are known for clever branding and advertising. In some instances, this gets cannabis companies in trouble. See Cannabis Trademark Litigation: Wrigley Wins. Sometimes cannabis companies try to hew the parody line when riffing on an existing trademark. See Reminder: The Parody Defense to Trademark Infringement is Tricky. As my cannabis litigation colleague, Jihee
We regularly cover intellectual property disputes on the blog, and the Edible Arrangements v. Green Thumb Industries trademark infringement case is one we covered two years ago when filed. Since then, this case appears to have been moderately active, with the parties engaging in the usual discovery and related motion practice. However, things did take
Federal or state trademarks, which should I register? This is a question we regularly get in our IP practice. For cannabis brands in particular, the answer is often straightforward. The lawful use requirement The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is responsible for registering trademarks at the federal level. According to the Trademark Act
The notion of ornamental trademark use is foreign to many cannabis businesses. This is unfortunate, because it’s an important issue to understand in the cannabis industry, where the only federal trademark protection we can obtain is for ancillary goods and services. (See here for the limitations of federal trademark protection in the cannabis industry.) The issue of
I’m guilty of dunking on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in the past for not doing more to protect cannabis consumers, despite the current federal illegality of cannabis. That may be changing, at least with respect to CBD consumers. Before diving into this latest development, I should mention that historically, cannabis is treated differently from
Deceptive matter is yet another pitfall faced by canna brands as they take steps to protect their intellectual property. According to the U.S. Trademark Act (commonly known as the Lanham Act), such matter may not be registered as a trademark (15 U.S.C. § 1052(a)). While to some extent this is a commonsense rule that seeks
A final judgment recently rendered in WM. Wrigley Jr. Company v. Roberto Conde, et al., is nothing short of a cautionary tale and a powerful reminder to cannabis companies: Parody is NOT a defense to trademark infringement in this type of commercial context. The parties We all know Wrigley – it’s a titan in the
