Intellectual Property Insights from Fishman Stewart PLLC
Newsletter – Volume 22, Issue 9
Share on Social
Cannabis Trademarks: Counterculture or Counterfeit?
By Zachary P. Grant
Lately, numerous household brands have received a bit of a spin. For example, you might have seen cannabis-infused Skittles® candy, Potify software, Tapatio® THC wax, Gorilla Glue® marijuana flower, UPS® cannabis delivery, or Jimmy Buffett’s Marijuanaville. But, so far, none of these brands are actually jumping headfirst into the cannabis industry. These are examples of cannabis businesses that attempted to leverage the goodwill of iconic brands to give their fledgling start-ups a boost.
Trademark infringement is prevalent in all industries, but some of the examples coming from the cannabis sector seem particularly salient, and with the advent of state cannabis legalization, trademark infringement lawsuits are on the rise. Cannabis brand owners have a long history of using clever names, puns, and parodies to make their taboo products more approachable. But this history of counterculture branding has raised issues of trademark infringement and counterfeiting for several cannabis business owners.
Many cannabis brands are created by entrepreneurs who are not seeking to poke the sleeping bear of established trademark owners. Rather, those entrepreneurs erroneously believe that merely creating a clever twist on an existing product name in a new market creates sufficient distinction between the brands to insulate them from liability. While there is precedent for such an argument, trademark fair-use and similar defenses around that kind of artistic expression are extremely complex and require strong evidence that there is no likelihood of confusion between brands.
A primary tenet of trademark law is to create clarity in the marketplace and bolster consumer confidence in product authenticity. When cannabis businesses adopt branding that uses the name and iconography of established trademarks there is a risk of consumer confusion. Moreover, these cannabis companies also neglect to consider that even trade dress – the colors and typography used in association with trademarks – can also be a basis for confusion. Branding that creates uncertainty or confusion in a product’s origin is damaging to the original brand owner and poses a danger to consumers who might inadvertently imbibe a psychoactive substance.
Thus, brand owners need to watch out for naïve and malicious actors that may be growing something in their back yard. Likewise, cannabis entrepreneurs must be careful to steer clear of using trademarks and packaging that might create consumer confusion. Finally, consumers should regularly inspect product labels to verify authenticity, and report potential instances of fraud to the FTC.
The rapid growth and associated growing pains of the cannabis industry is fascinating to observe, but trademark infringement in this sector is an excellent reminder that trademark law keeps consumers safe and businesses thriving.
For more information trademark strategies for cannabis brand owners, see our white paper on the subject.
Published April 28, 2022
Maxwell Goss Presents on Intellectual Property and the First Amendment
Related Content from Fishman Stewart
In the US, Thanksgiving is quickly approaching. For many, Thanksgiving and (American) football go hand-in-hand, with the Detroit Lions’ game as much a staple of the holiday as turkey and pie. However, this year’s game arrives amid controversy: Lions’ legendary Hall of Famer Barry Sanders is facing a lawsuit alleging copyright infringement.
After three years of litigation, a court has held that the “beat that goes on” for Cher’s right to continue receiving royalties on songs created during her marriage to Sonny Bono, despite attempts by Sonny’s widow, Mary Bono, to invoke federal copyright termination rights to end those payments.
Watching scary movies is a time-honored Halloween tradition, and one of the greatest movies to watch this time of year is “Ghostbusters” which premiered in 1984.
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ordered the cancellation of four U.S. trademark registrations for SUPER HERO and SUPER HEROES owned jointly by Marvel Characters, Inc. and DC Comics.
Halloween is coming up at the end of this month, and we are celebrating a little early with the spooky copyright story of Jap Herron!
In 2023, California artist Joe Morford lost his copyright infringement lawsuit against Italian artist Maurizio Cattelan. Morford claimed that Cattelan's viral artwork "Comedian," which features a banana duct-taped to a wall, was a copy of his own work, "Banana and Orange."
Last month, Outkast filed suit against ATLiens Touring, seeking an injunction against ATLiens Touring’s continued use of ATLiens and seeking damages.
Imagine opening a brand-new box of 64-color Crayola Crayons. Take a whiff. No matter how or where or when you grew up, this is a scent you know. We all know. But is that enough to obtain a US federal trademark registration?
Historically, “bad word” marks would have been refused as “immoral” or “scandalous.” That changed due to the Supreme Court’s 2019 Iancu v. Brunetti decision.
Fourteen teams of the US National Basketball Association (NBA) have been sued in federal district court for copyright infringement. The complaints were filed by companies claiming to own rights in various musical works.
IDENTIFYING, SECURING AND ADVANCING CREATIVITY®
