This article was originally published to Seyfarth’s The Blunt Truth blog.

Republic Technologies (NA) LLC (“Republic”) filed an application to register the proposed mark 4:20 with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).  Republic amended its goods twice during prosecution of the application and ultimately sought to register “tobacco; cigarette papers; cigarette filters; cigarette tubes; cigarette rolling machines; handheld machines for injecting tobacco into cigarette tubes; machines allowing smokers to make cigarettes by themselves; none of the foregoing containing or for use with cannabis” (emphasis added). The USPTO alleged that consumers would understand 4:20 to mean cannabis, the mark misdescribes non-cannabis related goods, and consumers would believe the misrepresentation. Therefore, the USPTO refused registration alleging that the mark was deceptively misdescriptive of the goods in the application. Republic appealed the decision to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”). But the Board saw through the smoke of Republic’s arguments and affirmed the refusal. 

Republic is a leading provider of smoking accessories. Republic initially filed its application for the mark 4:20 for use in association with the goods “tobacco; cigarette papers; cigarette filters; cigarette tubes; cigarette rolling machines; handheld machines for injecting tobacco into cigarette tubes; machines allowing smokers to make cigarettes by themselves.” Perhaps familiar with the many uses of Republic’s goods, the USPTO refused the application on mere descriptiveness grounds. It alleged that consumers understand 4:20 to mean cannabis and the goods describe a product containing or to be used with cannabis. The USPTO also asked Republic to provide additional information about its goods. In particular, whether the goods contain or would be used in connection with cannabis or marijuana. Continue Reading 4:20 Unfriendly – TTAB Says 4:20 is Deceptively Misdescriptive of Goods Not Used with Cannabis

Originally posted on The Blunt Truth blog

A Texas appellate court recently upheld a decision to prevent a ban on the sale of delta-8 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) products in the state.  Tex. Dep’t of State Health Servs. v. Sky Mktg. Corp., No. 03-21-00571-CV, 2023 BL 341460, 2023 TX App Lexis 7448.  The decision allows cannabis

A recent lawsuit filed in Washington state court alleging trademark infringement by AmerikanWeed, Palmer v. Komm, illustrates the importance of protecting intellectual property in the cannabis industry.[1]

Because the plaintiffs obtained a Washington state trademark registration, their recourse is limited to that state. To have recourse against infringement outside Washington, a federal registration may provide

This post was originally published to Seyfarth’s The Blunt Truth blog.

Recently, we published an article regarding the increasing viability of cannabis related patents. See here. Sadly, the story is the opposite for federal trademarks. Last month, National Concessions Group, Inc. (“NCG”) was denied federal registration for its trademarks: BAKKED and

(collectively the

Seyfarth Brian Michaelis, Matthew Brekus, and JC Zwisler authored an article titled “Calif. Ruling May Sow Seeds Of Cannabis Patent Precedent” in Law360 on April 19. The Seyfarth attorneys discussed a California ruling from last year, Gene Pool Technologies Inc. v. Coastal Harvest LLC, which states patent owners in the cannabis industry may be

Proposed legislation in Pennsylvania would allow the sale of cannabis through the Commonwealth’s existing alcohol store system. This could make it easier for consumers of both substances to stock up for their next get-together. But it could also lead to confusion in the aisles of Pennsylvania’s liquor stores.

Those native to or living in Pennsylvania

This post was originally published on Seyfarth’s The Blunt Truth blog.

Cannabis has become a growing sector for investment with increased focus by investors and entrepreneurs. See our colleague’s impressions from the 2022 MJ BizCon cannabis conference here. With the increased funding pouring into this sector has come a desire to protect the intellectual

Co-authored by Ruth Fisher, PhD

The following post explores the bioavailability and efficacy of various cannabis products, followed by a brief overview of the legal protection afforded to each as an intellectual property asset.

Over the millennia, our bodies have evolved to better protect themselves. Protection from outside our bodies comes from our skin, which

Despite legislative uncertainty (e.g., bills that have been passed, multiple times, but not become law), a wide range of brilliant entrepreneurs, industrial companies, investment mavens, and service providers have been consciously and conscientiously advancing the US cannabis industry’s interests.

MJBizCon and CannaVest West are proof positive – the breadth, depth, and sophistication of cannabis-related products