wrigley

Cannabis Trademark Litigation: Wrigley Wins

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

cannabis patent litigation

Utility Patent Owner Targets Cannabis Producer

While patent protection has been generally available for some time now, we’ve covered why patent protection has been largely limited for the cannabis industry (see this post). However, that isn’t going to stop patent infringement actions from reaching cannabis businesses, as can be seen from a recent case filed by a greenhouse builder. The complaint

cannabis patent

Cannabis Patent Q&A

On June 14, 2022, Harris Sliwoski attorneys Fred Rocafort, Jihee Ahn, Paul Coble, and Vincent Silwoski presented a webinar entitled Protecting, Monetizing and Enforcing Cannabis Intellectual Property. Attendees submitted many great questions before and during the webinar, but our IP attorneys were not able to answer all of them. In this post, we will answer

first amendment trademark

First Amendment May Help Cannabis Companies Beat Trademark Infringement Claims

Editor’s Note: A version of this article by Fred Rocafort was first published on Law360. The U.S. Constitution’s free speech protections, found in the First Amendment, may present a legal recourse for cannabis brands in trouble for using marks that are similar to famous trademarks. To be clear, a free speech argument will not be

trademark infringement litigation

Trademark Infringement Litigation Case Study: Uncle Bud’s

On the heels of our recent intellectual property webinar, we received some requests for real world examples of how trademark infringement litigation plays out in the courts. Luckily (or unluckily, depending on how you see things), trademark infringement litigation cases are filed on an almost daily basis throughout the country, and this one filed this

cannabis patent valuation

Unique Challenges in Cannabis Patent Valuation

Patents are increasingly a significant proportion of a cannabis company’s claimed valuation. As cannabis companies identify ways to differentiate their business from competitors, patents play an important role in ensuring that competitors cannot duplicate their products or processes.   Patents are often used to insulate products from direct competition by building temporary barriers to prevent competitors

delta

Delta-8 Is Legal, But …

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.”

parody defense copyright litigation

Sometimes, the Parody Defense to Copyright Infringement Works!

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

counterfeit trademark thc edible product

Major Food and Beverage Companies Call Out Marijuana Copycats

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

free speech cannabis trademark

Free Speech and Cannabis Brands

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