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
What will happen with cannabis trademarks after federal legalization? This question comes up regularly, but unfortunately lacks a clear answer (or even an unclear answer). On the one hand, with cannabis no longer unlawful at the federal level, USPTO will be able to register trademarks for cannabis products. But beyond that, nothing is clear. Whose
Every cannabis company has been asking lately how they can start making money from cannabis NFTs (non-fungible tokens). Many of these companies know that NFTs are part of the greater Web3 movement that feels somewhat familiar, especially to marijuana companies. Web3 is in large measure a counterculture movement that pushes back against large institutions that
While cannabis brands need to be mindful of cannabis-specific trademark issues, they must also pay attention to trademarking basics. Back in January, we discussed three key trademark issues: distinctiveness, likelihood of confusion, and application bases. Today we continue our exploration of trademark basics, looking at the importance of choosing goods and services thoughtfully, in order
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
Last week, Phylos Bioscience filed a federal court complaint against Silver Lion Farms in the District of Oregon. The complaint details that Phylos and Silver Lion had entered into a Letter of Engagement for Silver Lion to purchase $2,954,250 worth of hemp seeds of two different varieties – 14,625,000 of AutoCBD seeds and 8,775,000 of
Spotify AB (“Spotify”) has prevailed in two opposition proceedings it brought against the registrations of two POTIFY marks, which were applied for by U.S. Software Inc. (“U.S. Software”), in connection to its Potify platform. According to U.S. Software, Potify is “a backend software platform designed for legal marijuana dispensaries to market and sell their products.”
