The registration of cannabis trademarks in the United States raises novel issues. This is an unsurprising result of the uneasy coexistence between expanding legality at the state level, and ongoing prohibition at the federal level. Cannabis businesses need to keep these issues on their radar when crafting brand strategies. At the same time, however, they
Parody is a tricky defense to cannabis trademark infringement, or to any infringement allegation whatsoever. For some background on this, check out our posts here, here and here. Still, people riff off established trademarks all the time, and when pursued, they often raise the parody defense. In the cannabis context, this happened most recently in
Since the legalization of hemp in 2018, CBD brands have struggled with inconsistent policies and enforcement from major social media companies when it comes to marketing their products. The consequences can be devastating. Accounts of many CBD brands have been suspended at one point or another, interrupting critical communication with customers, and harming goodwill. Sometimes,
Federal cannabis trademark litigation is a difficult proposition. In a recent case filed by Wunderwerks, Inc., a company that sells beverages infused with CBD and THC additives, we see another unfortunate example of this. Federal courts, at least, are still no friend to the cannabis industry. Wunderwerks had sued Dual Beverage Company LLC (“DBC”) in
We’ve seen a steady stream of trademark litigation in the cannabis space for quite some time now, and it’s as good a time as any to remind our readers that parody is not a defense to trademark infringement. In its complaint filed Monday, Plaintiffs Big Beverage, Inc. and Happy Hour Drinks Company, Inc. dba Happy
Rafael Arcuri, Henrique Coelho, and Marcelo De Vita Greco just penned a great article in Consultor Jurídico on the denials by the National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) of applications to register cannabis trademark on the grounds that they offend morality and good customs. The basis for these denials is Article 124(III) of Brazil’s Industrial
Our posts here regularly cover celebrity-backed cannabis companies who are doing things right (and sometimes, doing things wrong), but a recent copyright infringement case proves that not all celebrities are interested in getting involved in the industry – and certainly shouldn’t be presumed to be okay with using their fame to promote it. Solar Therapeutics
In a case we’ve been watching closely, a California District Court Judge recently denied a motion by cannabis company Capna Intellectual. The motion sought to dismiss tobacco giant ITG Brands’ dilution claim for its “KOOL” brand. ITG’s branding uses “KOOL OOs” while Capna’s branding uses “BLOOM OOs.” As a refresher, in December 2020, ITG had
Back in April, we discussed Florida law enforcement’s concerns over THC edibles whose packaging infringed on the trademarks of famous candy brands. These fakes have the potential to confuse consumers, as well as help minors conceal their use of THC products. We revisited the topic earlier this month, when we argued that the USPTO’s refusal
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s policy of rejecting applications to register trademarks that identify nonhemp cannabis products, as well as certain hemp CBD products, reflects an unduly doctrinaire approach that ultimately makes Americans less safe. As the cannabis industry continues to enter the business mainstream, the extension of trademark rights to cannabis companies’ products
