Frederic Rocafort Attorney

This case is just one of many involving the use of famous candy or snack brands on cannabis products.

Some foreign lawyers in China, who by definition are forbidden from practicing law in the country, have been open about this gaping hole in China’s legal protections. American attorney Fred Rocafort in 2019 wrote in a blog for law firm Harris Sliwoski that “China does not have an attorney-client privilege.”

Rocafort cites another American lawyer, Brad Luo, who had several years prior written that “China’s ethical rules for lawyers have a ‘bright line’ rule forbidding them from representing both sides in the same conflict, but go little beyond that.” Luo explained that China does not require lawyers to remain loyal to former clients, therefore allowing them to turn on them “without offending any ethical duty of confidentiality” to either the old client or the new client. Rocafort offers some examples: “Perhaps your Chinese lawyer has another client who would just love to take a look at that new patent application of yours. Perhaps your Chinese law firm stands to benefit by tipping off your competitor before it files your trademark application – we have many times heard of this happening.”

Both Luo and Rocafort come to the conclusion that “if I were a client, I’d hesitate talking about certain things with my Chinese lawyer.”

Frederic Rocafort, partner at Harris Bricken in Seattle who successfully filed an expungement petition against ‘World Famous Salmon Tackle Salmon Snatcher Get Hooked Up’, says the amount of work involved was a little too much.

That’s because the case was clearcut, he says, though he notes that he is limited in what he can disclose about it.

“These proceedings are a very welcome development. But if I could add something to my wish list, I’d like there to be more streamlined proceedings when there’s absolutely nothing out there that demonstrates use,” he says.

Fred Rocafort, an intellectual property attorney at Harris Bricken, then added insights about the regulatory framework affecting the international trade of cannabis. The prospect of bringing in goods to the U.S. is linked to their legality, Rocafort said. While some cases the law is clear, in others it is murkier. For instance, according to the federal government, there is no such thing as medical cannabis, and state law may be more important to consider, Rocafort said.

Fred Rocafort, an attorney at Harris Sliwoski in Washington, advises that, while cannabis brands cannot avail themselves of all the tools at the disposal of brands operating in more established spaces, they should act like those brands as far as possible.

“This means, among other things, monitoring the marketplace, educating consumers on how to identify genuine products and on the risks of using counterfeits, ensuring that proper protocols are in place to protect confidential information, and having proper contracts in place.

“Brands should fully exercise their rights at the state level and prepare—to the extent possible—for different federal legislation scenarios. They should also remember that a legal status quo that is not challenged is one that is unlikely to change.”

There is a need for more legal clarity, because would-be foreign investors are still uncomfortable with Thailand’s “go with the flow” approach to medical use, said Frederic Rocafort, a lawyer in Seattle who advises clients on cannabis policies in Thailand and other countries.

“It’s interesting, but, as lawyers, it drives us crazy,” he said.

“Business relationships are very fragile,” Frederic Rocafort, a lawyer at the Seattle-based law firm Harris Sliwoski, which works with Taiwanese manufacturing clients, told Al Jazeera.

“If you don’t have that ability to network and maintain your existing clients, all it takes is one or two years and you may find someone else.”

Congress should provide clarity around imports of products that can be used both as drug paraphernalia and for legitimate purposes, Harris Bricken lawyer Fred Rocafort said in a blog post. The current approach under the Controlled Substances Act results in CBP relying on marketing materials and social media posts to determine whether or not a product will be used lawfully, Rocafort said. “There is something unsettling in CBP’s approach,” he said. “On the one hand, the agency requires importers to demonstrate that their products are intended for lawful use, even when potential legal uses are obvious.” For example, a 2008 ruling found that grinders were considered drug paraphernalia. “Those grinders that were the subject of the ruling letter could be used to grind tobacco or tea, as the importer contended, and this is something that CBP did not deny,” he said. “Yet CBP will go out of its way to find evidence that supports a finding that an item is drug paraphernalia.”

“It does not make any sense to criminalize implements that can be used to carry or smoke marijuana, as the same implements can be used to carry or smoke hemp,” Rocafort tells CPG FYI.

“As currently drafted, the drug paraphernalia statute gives far too much discretion to law enforcement when it comes to labeling products as drug paraphernalia.”

“The recent uncovering of the THC-laced, knock-off candies in Florida illustrates why U.S. Patent and Trademark Ofice registration of cannabis trademarks would protect the public by providing companies with quality and safety incentives and empowering them to pursue counterfeiters,” says Frederic Rocafort at Harris Sliwoski.

“In part this is because of restrictions on other types of investments and capital flows. At the same time, the property ladder has become a veritable obsession for society at large, perhaps to a greater degree than it has here in the United States, in part because of the social implications of owning (or not owning) an apartment,” said Fred Rocafort, a legal expert on China and a former diplomat.

Whatever the motive, these military exercises run the risk of rapid escalation—intentional or otherwise. “One of China’s objectives is to wear down and force errors by Taiwan’s armed forces as they respond,” Fred Rocafort, a legal expert on China and former diplomat, told The Dispatch.

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,[1] reflects an unduly doctrinaire approach that ultimately makes Americans less safe.

“For decades, America played along with the ‘One China’ fiction to a considerable degree. Back in the mid 2000s, when I was a U.S. diplomat in China, it would have been unthinkable for a Cabinet-level visit to take place, or for the Marine presence in Taipei to be openly discussed,” Fred Rocafort, a legal expert on China and former diplomat, told The Dispatch.

Beijing is making clear it expects Hongkongers to make their peace with the paramount and undisputed nature of CCP rule.

More than anything it is a reminder of the U.S.’ rejection of Chinese claims over the South China Sea and, more importantly, willingness to challenge them,” said Fred Rocafort, a legal expert on China and former diplomat. “As we have seen with other territorial disputes around the world, verbal opposition alone is unlikely to deter countries making forceful claims.

“The Chinese authorities and their Hong Kong adjuncts have made it abundantly clear that they mean business. They rammed through the National Security Law, expelled legislators from the Legislative Council, and have in general taken a hard line,” Fred Rocafort, a legal expert on China and former diplomat, told The Dispatch.

“It is a clear win for all signatories. What it delivers in real terms remains to be seen, of course, but it is reasonable to expect it will drive significant growth at least between some member-country pairs,” Fred Rocafort, a legal expert on China and a former diplomat, told The Dispatch. “Because of the need to accommodate widely divergent interests, the RCEP is not as far-reaching as some other trade deals, but the fact some form of agreement was reached is itself remarkable.”

“The failure to withdraw from the board may have just been an inadvertent slip, but what you said is clearly not a ‘false narrative,’” said Fred Rocafort, an attorney at the international law firm Harris Sliwoski.

“This is not just a new law, it’s really a new order in Hong Kong,” says Fred Rocafort, a former diplomat and legal expert on China at law firm Harris Sliwoski. He expects “relatively constant applications of the law for even relatively minor acts” as this state of affairs is established.

“With the U.S ones, there’s going to be, for the foreseeable future, a particular danger,” Harris Sliwoski’s Rocafort tells Ignites Asia.

“China is criminalizing what, in places like the United States, and most countries in the world, would be considered normal discourse,” Fred Rocafort, a legal expert on China and a former diplomat, told The Dispatch.

“At the moment companies look to Hong Kong as a way of having one foot in China but keeping the other foot out of all the complications that doing business in mainland China brings,” said Fred Rocafort, a lawyer at Harris Sliwoski who has more than a decade of international legal experience, primarily in China, Vietnam and Thailand. “To the extent that you start moving in the direction of having, if not both feet, let’s say almost both feet in the mainland, that’s going to be a problem.”

International trade lawyer Fred Rocafort of international law firm Harris Sliwoski said restrictions on exports to Hong Kong could also likely form part of the US government’s initial response to the certification. He added that this should concern companies that export sensitive technologies to Hong Kong.

The problem with intellectual property theft in China is not due to a lack of legislation, according to Fred Rocafort, a former U.S. diplomat who has worked on IP issues in Asia for more than a decade.

The Far East Podcast talks with international IP attorney Fred Rocafort about why intellectual property protection is so important.