Originally posted on Seyfarth’s The Blunt Truth blog.

I don’t wanna grow up, I’m a TOYS R US kid. So, many of us grew up with this commercial jingle and it along with the brand brings back positive memories of celebrating birthdays and holidays. But what happens when a company operating in a not so kid-friendly field starts using a trademark similar to that of the TOYS R US mark? 

In a case that blends nostalgia with modern controversy, Tru Kids Inc., the owner of the TOYS R US mark, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against a vape and cannabis retailer operating under the name VAPE R US. The complaint alleges trademark infringement, dilution, false designation of origin, and unfair competition under both federal and state law. Tru Kids Inc. v. Vape R Us, Inc. et al, 3:25-cv-00781-VAB (D.Conn.). 

At the heart of the dispute is the retailer’s use of branding that closely mirrors the iconic TOYS R US trademark and others associated with the brand. According to the complaint, the vape shop’s signage features multicolored bubble letters, a reversed “R” with a star, and even a depiction of Geoffrey the Giraffe. The long-standing mascot of the toy brand appears with a not so familiar “toy”—a vaping device.Continue Reading I Don’t Wanna Grow Up, I’m a What Kind of Kid? Toys R Us Takes on Vape R Us in Trademark Battle

Originally posted on Seyfarth’s The Blunt Truth blog.

Last year, the case of BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP v. Central Agriculture Inc. made headlines in the trademark world when the Ninth Circuit held that district courts have jurisdiction to alter or cancel trademark applications.  97 F.4th 668 (9th Cir. 2024). 

Once again, the case is

Originally posted on Seyfarth’s The Blunt Truth Blog.

As the prospect of federal rescheduling of cannabis looms, some in the industry are seemingly attempting to preserve their spot in line at the United States Patent and Trademark Office.  A recent Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) decision underscores a significant hurdle for cannabis

JC Zwisler, associate in Seyfarth’s Litigation department, will speak at the ABA Litigation Section’s webinar, “Protecting Cannabis: An In-Depth Discussion of Intellectual Property Protections of Cannabis,” on August 8. The program will discuss how to protect cannabis goods and services through existing and future IP rights in the US.

Click here for more information and

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