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
September 19th is International Talk Like a Pirate Day. In terms of intellectual property, “pirating” refers to the unauthorized copying, distribution, or use of someone else's creative work without their permission, and often for personal or financial gain.
School names and their indicia are now a big source of revenue and local schools’ merchandise is found alongside college and pro sports merchandise. However, included with the increased visibility from the monetization and use of school names and mascots are trademark infringement risks.
National Red Wine Day is observed each year on August 28th. This year, to celebrate, we are sharing a fun story about wine, trademarks, and legal battle over the rights to use a family name on wine labels.
Have you ever wondered what was the very first work to receive a copyright registration in the United States?
The words “generative artificial intelligence” or “generative AI” have been crowding headlines for months with stories about the potential benefits and perils to humans. This article breaks down the top questions and answers we encounter regarding AI and intellectual property.
How many ways are there to tape a banana to a wall? Yes, this is a serious legal question. In fact, this was the question presented in a recent copyright infringement lawsuit in Florida.
Under US copyright law, to receive protection, a work must be “fixed” which means that a work must be expressed or embodied in a material medium that lasts for more than a transitory period.
In a rare unanimous decision, the Supreme Court sided with Jack Daniel’s Properties, reversing the Ninth Circuit decision that found VIP Products’ dog chew toy, a non-infringing parody of the trademark rights Jack Daniel’s holds in its name, JACK DANIEL’S, OLD NO. 7, the label, and bottle design.
People like tacos on Tuesdays. They just do. It’s even fun to say: “Taco Tuesday.” But since 1995, Registrant has owned a federal trademark registration for “Taco Tuesday.” Not cool.
The US Copyright Office recently made headlines for partially revoking a copyright registration it previously issued for an AI-generated graphic novel. Artist Kristina Kashtanova used the Midjourney platform to create images that she included in her graphic novel called Zarya of the Dawn.
IDENTIFYING, SECURING AND ADVANCING CREATIVITY®
