Lawful use in commerce is a requirement for a trademark to be registered in the United States. For cannabis brands, this means that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will not register trademarks used in connection with products that are illegal under federal law, most notably marijuana. However, USPTO’s problematic approach to lawful
Las marcas de cannabis son conocidas por sus ingeniosas estrategias de marca y publicidad. En algunos casos, esto mete a las empresas de cannabis en problemas. Véase «Litigios sobre marcas registradas de cannabis: Wrigley gana». A veces, las empresas de cannabis intentan moverse en la delgada línea de la parodia cuando hacen referencia a una marca registrada ya existente. Véase «Recordatorio: la defensa basada en la parodia ante la infracción de marcas registradas es delicada». Un compañero abogado especializado en litigios relacionados con el cannabis explicó: «la parodia
We regularly cover intellectual property disputes on the blog, and the Edible Arrangements v. Green Thumb Industries trademark infringement case is one we covered two years ago when filed. Since then, this case appears to have been moderately active, with the parties engaging in the usual discovery and related motion practice. However, things did take
Many cannabis companies spend significant resources developing new cannabis cultivars or refining popular strain genetics. As they do so, more and more are looking for strategies to protect those investments. Plant patents for purportedly novel cannabis plants are increasingly common, but are plant patents really the best way to protect cannabis genes? In addition to
Federal or state trademarks, which should I register? This is a question we regularly get in our IP practice. For cannabis brands in particular, the answer is often straightforward. The lawful use requirement The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is responsible for registering trademarks at the federal level. According to the Trademark Act
The notion of ornamental trademark use is foreign to many cannabis businesses. This is unfortunate, because it’s an important issue to understand in the cannabis industry, where the only federal trademark protection we can obtain is for ancillary goods and services. (See here for the limitations of federal trademark protection in the cannabis industry.) The issue of
Tobacco paraphernalia is in many cases indistinguishable from cannabis paraphernalia, especially when products are unconnected to specific consumers. If an item can be used in both lawful and unlawful ways, it seems illogical to classify it as drug paraphernalia, unless the item is connected to illegal activity. Yet the approach of the U.S. federal authorities
Deceptive matter is yet another pitfall faced by canna brands as they take steps to protect their intellectual property. According to the U.S. Trademark Act (commonly known as the Lanham Act), such matter may not be registered as a trademark (15 U.S.C. § 1052(a)). While to some extent this is a commonsense rule that seeks
La sentencia firme dictada recientemente en el caso WM. Wrigley Jr. Company contra Roberto Conde y otros no es más que una advertencia y un claro recordatorio para las empresas del sector del cannabis: la parodia NO constituye una defensa ante la infracción de marcas registradas en este tipo de contexto comercial. Las partes Todos conocemos a Wrigley: es un gigante en el
Aunque la protección mediante patente lleva ya algún tiempo siendo accesible en general, ya hemos explicado por qué esta protección ha sido muy limitada para el sector del cannabis (véase esta entrada). Sin embargo, eso no va a impedir que las demandas por infracción de patente afecten a las empresas del sector del cannabis, como se desprende de un caso reciente presentado por un constructor de invernaderos. La demanda
