Given the recent influx of cannabis-IP licensing deals on which we have worked, I thought it important to discuss some of the issues potential licensees often face when negotiating with brand owners. These licensing deals are complicated and fraught with unique cannabis-related issues. View Full Post
Yet ANOTHER Cannabis Trademark Infringement Case: Tapatio Foods Files Suit Choose your cannabis brand name wisely If this feels like déjà vu (all over again), it’s probably because earlier this month, I wrote about The Gorilla Glue Company’s lawsuit for trademark infringement against GG Stains LLC out of Nevada. In that case, Gorilla Glue, the manufacturer of a variety of adhesives sold under the “Gorilla” brand and distinctive logo, alleged trademark infringement, dilution, unfair competition, and cybersquatting against GG Strains, which marketed one of its popular strains under the name “Gorilla Glue.” The allegation was that by marketing its cannabis strains under “confusingly similar” names, GG Strains was trading off the goodwill and reputation established by Gorilla Glue over the course of 23 years. View Full Post
What NOT to do with your Cannabis Brand: The Gorilla Glue Trademark Infringement Dispute The Gorilla Glue Company and GG Strains LLC, a Nevada-based cannabis company, entered a recent settlement agreement in the trademark infringement case brought by Gorilla Glue back in March. This case provided a perfect illustration of what NOT to do when developing your cannabis brand, and it now illustrates the possible consequences of infringing the trademarks of a well-established company. View Full Post
BREAKING NEWS: California Will Begin Issuing Temporary Commercial Cannabis Licenses by January 1st Yesterday, at the California Cannabis Business Conference in Anaheim (attended by our Southern California cannabis attorneys), the California Bureau of Cannabis Control (the “Bureau”) released information regarding temporary license applications under the Medicinal and Adult Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (“MAUCRSA”), which we now know will start to issue on January 1, 2018–see the Bureau’s brochure on temporary licensing details here. View Full Post
California Cannabis Manufacturing Restrictions Under MAUCRSA (SB 94) California cannabis manufacturing We wrote about cannabis edibles regulations under the proposed manufacturing rules issued pursuant to the MCRSA, but clients have been asking about what, if anything, has changed due to passage of Senate Bill 94. Here’s what SB 94, aka “MAUCRSA,” has to say, generally, about edibles: MAUCRSA mandates edible cannabis products must meet the following requirements: Not be designed to appeal to children, or be easily confused with commercially sold candy or foods that do not contain cannabis; Produced and sold with a standardized concentration of cannabinoids not to exceed 10 mg of THC per serving; Delineated or scored into standardized serving sizes if the cannabis product contains more than one serving; Homogenized to ensure uniform disbursement of cannabinoids; Manufactured and sold under sanitation standards that comport with California State Department of Health regulations; Provided to consumers with sufficient information to enable informed consumption of the product, including the potential effects of the cannabis product and directions for its consumption; and Marked with a universal symbol that will be set by the California Department of Health. View Full Post
California’s Proposed Advertising Restrictions: Modern Day Reefer Madness? California may take its cannabis advertising restrictions to the next level if Senate Bill 162 makes it through the Assembly Appropriations Committee. SB 162, which the Senate passed unanimously last month, would prohibit future cannabis licensees from advertising their cannabis products “through the use of branded merchandise, including, but not limited to, clothing, hats, or other merchandise with the name or logo of the product.” View Full Post