Just last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower court’s holding that the 2018 Farm Bill legalized delta-8 THC products derived from hemp. In the Ninth Circuit’s view, “the plain and unambiguous text of the Farm [Bill] compels the conclusion that the delta-8 THC products before us are lawful.”
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
Register HERE! Protecting and monetizing intellectual property (IP) assets in the cannabis industry is a critical step for many businesses. Enforcement of valuable IP rights against infringers may also be vital to a cannabis business’s success. The cannabis industry is highly dynamic and competitive. In addition to state and local rules, the Schedule I status
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
Register HERE! Protecting and monetizing intellectual property (IP) assets in the cannabis industry is a critical step for many businesses. Enforcement of valuable IP rights against infringers may also be vital to a cannabis business’s success. The cannabis industry is highly dynamic and competitive. In addition to state and local rules, the Schedule I status
Could the First Amendment’s free speech protections offer a lifeline to cannabis brands hauled into court for trademark infringement for using parody trademarks? In some cases, it might. For readers unfamiliar with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, it reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
It should come as no surprise that the number of applications for cannabis patents has been steadily increasing in recent years. In this post we discuss the basics of the subject, with a focus in the United States. While patent systems usually bear some similarities, some of the details may be different in other countries.
Is the lawful use requirement for trademarks lawful? In a recent Vanderbilt Law Review article, Robert A. Mikos compellingly argues that it is not. The article is a must-read for anyone interested in the topic of cannabis trademarks, but highlights a problem that goes far beyond cannabis, and indeed trademark law. For those unfamiliar with
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
Since launching our Web3 practice group, we have been getting steady inquiries regarding cannabis and web3 crossover. In this post, I focus on the tokenization of cannabis business assets, which often occurs through ICOs (initial coin offerings). This is currently an unsettled area of law in the U.S., and we do not recommend trying to
