What's Trending?
Curious about the importance of international brand protections? Just check out Mario Cortez’s recent SF Chronicle article featuring some quotes from yours truly (who's hungry for some In-N-Out...or maybe some "Ini-N-Nout"?:
In-N-Out Copycats Are All the Rage in Mexico. Do They Live Up to the Original?
The tree is shaking in the world of cannabis trademark litigation, and it is illuminating to see what chestnuts are falling out onto the ground. Canna Law Blog provides a good background on the Woodstock (yes, that Woodstock) case and its current developments:
“Here, the court didn’t think that consumers were likely to be confused by two parties selling smokers’ articles and cannabis under identical marks. The court noted that the Defendants had “expressly disavowed the notion that their products are intended for use with recreational marijuana” during their trademark prosecution process, something that was necessary for them to procure federal trademark protection, but is now a fact that can be used against them in their argument for likelihood of confusion.”
We have been preaching the inefficiency of that very approach to federal protection for some time. In short, if you own a cannabis brand, you want some federal acknowledgement of your brand’s connection to that industry. Pretending to be a lighters and ashtrays company for the sake of gaining federal registration might not cut it…in fact, it may be detrimental.
Contact us to discuss to your options for an effective protection strategy!
Below is our letter of public comment submitted to California’s Bureau of Cannabis Control the proposed text of regulations Section 5032(b) regarding commercial cannabis activity. If you share our viewpoint we urge you to repurpose this language and/or submit your own personalized position to the BCC before November 5, 2018. Instructions for submission of public comment by email or mail are found here: https://www.bcc.ca.gov/law_regs/17-065_public_comment.pdf
California’s three state cannabis licensing authorities, the Bureau of Cannabis Control, the California Department of Public Health and the California Department of Food and Agriculture, proposed new regulations in the California Regulatory Notice Register on July 13, 2018. This was the first step toward adopting non-emergency regulations and opened the 45-day public comment period required in the formal rulemaking process.
New label requirements mandated by California’s Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA), as well as the proposed emergency regulations issued by the state’s three cannabis licensing authorities on November 16, 2017, are a departure from current practice, and could subject cultivators, wholesalers, manufacturers and retailers to liability if not addressed.
