skip to Main Content
Best Practices for Successfully Registering Federal Trademarks for Cannabis and Related Goods and Services

There is a common misconception that trademarks for cannabis and related goods and services are not registrable at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). This is simply not the case. By failing to federally register trademarks with the PTO, cannabis professionals are making costly mistakes that could ultimately put their brands at risk.

On December 20, 2018, the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 Farm Bill) became law. The 2018 Farm Bill removed “hemp”, defined as any part of the plant Cannabis sativa L. having not more than 0.3% THC (the principal psychoactive component of cannabis) from the Controlled Substances Act’s (CSA) definition of marijuana. It is important to note, however, that not all “hemp” related goods and services are lawful following the 2018 Farm Bill. A nuanced approach is necessary to successfully register trademarks for cannabis and related goods and services.

Use Must Be Lawful

To qualify for federal trademark registration, the use of a trademark in commerce must be lawful. This means that the goods and services must comply with all applicable federal laws.

Not all goods for CBD or hemp-derived products are lawful following the 2018 Farm Bill. Any CBD-containing or hemp-derived food or dietary supplement products may still be considered illegal if they undergo clinical investigation without FDA approval. Thus, registration of federal trademarks for many foods, beverages, dietary supplements, or pet treats containing CBD will still be refused by the USPTO as unlawful, even if derived from hemp.

Trademark Search and Opinion

The 2018 Farm Bill will undoubtedly lead to a flood of new federal trademark applications for cannabis-related goods and services. That said, a quick search of the PTO database is unlikely to find any confusingly similar marks, since before December 20, 2018, all trademarks for cannabis were unlawful, and thus unregistrable, at the PTO.

Rather than seek federal trademark protection, many applicants traditionally either obtained state trademark registrations, or simply used trademarks in states where cannabis is legal. Although the PTO cannot on its own refuse federal registration based upon common law use of an unregistered mark or trade name, the owner of an unregistered mark having priority of use could try to prevent you from federally registering your mark by filing a Notice of Opposition or Petition for Cancellation.

Given this risk, it is best practice to conduct a comprehensive trademark use and registrability search before filing a new federal trademark application with the PTO. This search will uncover any pending and registered marks at the PTO, relevant state trademark registrations, common law usage, and internet domain names.

File Federal Trademark Applications for Legal Cannabis Goods and Services

Cannabis goods and services that comply with all relevant federal laws are potentially registrable at the PTO. Nevertheless, it is likely an application filed for cannabis-related goods or services will receive an inquiry from the PTO regarding whether the goods or services identified comply with the CSA and/or the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA).

You can maximize your chances of successfully registering a cannabis-related trademark with the PTO and limit the costs associated with refusals by narrowly tailoring the listed goods and services to comply with federal law and PTO guidelines. For example, if your goods are derived from “hemp” as defined in the 2018 Farm Bill, the identification of goods must expressly state that the goods contain less than 0.3% THC. Accordingly, the scope of the registration will be limited to goods that are compliant with federal law.

Likewise, an applicant seeking to register a trademark in connection with “retail store services featuring marijuana” will be refused since the mark cannot be lawfully used in commerce. Specifically, the CSA prohibits, among other things, manufacturing, distributing, dispensing, or possessing cannabis that meets the definition of marijuana. Such a refusal may potentially be avoided by narrowing the scope of the application (if possible) in the following manner: “retail store services featuring topical analgesic balms; all the foregoing containing hemp extracts derived from Cannabis sativa L. with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.”

File Federal Trademark Applications for Related Goods and Services

A potential alternative approach for cannabis professionals is to file federal trademark applications for related goods and services that are legal. A review of the PTO records reveals that the following goods and services have recently been approved for publication:

  • “Oral vaporizers for smoking purposes not containing marijuana or for use with marijuana” in Class 34.
  • “Promoting public awareness of the positive effects of medical and recreational marijuana” in Class 35.
  • “Providing a website featuring information in the field of scientific research information pertaining to medical marijuana” in Class 42.
  • “Providing health information and advice and in the fields of medical marijuana, recreational marijuana, and cannabinol (CBD)” in Class 44.

Obtaining a federal trademark registration provides a registrant with nationwide rights. As such, successfully registering a trademark for related goods and services could be very valuable should cannabis eventually be legalized on the federal level.

In order to prevent refusals and reduce the costs and time associated with procuring federal trademark registrations, we recommend working with an experienced law firm that can draft applications in a manner to avoid the many pitfalls associated with cannabis-related trademark applications.

Joshua GoldbergJoshua Goldberg

Joshua Goldberg

Joshua B. Goldberg is the Partner-in-Charge of the Chemical, Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology Department of Nath, Goldberg & Meyer and works extensively with the firm’s Trademark department. Mr. Goldberg’s practice involves portfolio management and analysis, including the preparation, prosecution, and acquisition of U.S. and foreign patents across a wide range of technology areas. Mr. Goldberg has had a recent focus on patent and trademark issues related to cannabis products and has helped navigate clients through the options available for protecting the same.

Howard W. Kline is the Trademark Department Manager at Nath, Goldberg, and Meyer. Mr. Kline’s practice involves all aspects of trademark, unfair competition, and copyright law. He counsels clients on the availability and registration of trademarks and secures trademark registrations in the U.S. and throughout the world. Mr. Kline also represents clients in matters before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.

Practice Areas

Mr. Goldberg’s practice areas include:

Patent Estate Development, both in the U.S. and Internationally
U.S. and International Patent Application Drafting and Prosecution for Chemical, Pharmaceutical, and Biotechnology Innovations
Technology Evaluation and Positioning
Legal and Scientific Research and Analysis regarding Patentability, Patent Validity, Enforceability, and Freedom to Operate
Licensing, Acquisitions, Divestitures, and Joint Ventures
The Preparation, Filing, and Management of Oppositions Before the European Patent Office

Professional Profile

Mr. Goldberg received his practical scientific experience while performing research and development for Particle & Coating Technologies, Inc. During this stage of his career, Mr. Goldberg was responsible for the development, design, and experimental creation of various pharmaceutical delivery systems.

While in law school, Mr. Goldberg commenced his career in Intellectual Property law as a law clerk at NGM. Mr. Goldberg earned his U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Registration Number in 1998, and was admitted to the Bar of the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1999.

Mr. Goldberg has been actively practicing patent law at NGM since 1997. He has prepared and prosecuted numerous patent applications for both international and domestic clients in a wide variety of technology areas. His current practice places a particular emphasis on the chemical, pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and mechanical art areas. He also advises corporate, university, and independent clients in such areas as the development of offensive and defensive patent portfolios, the preparation of patent enforceability and invalidity opinions, and in freedom to operate searches and analysis

Mr. Goldberg is an elected Manager of the Chemical Society of Washington chapter of the American Chemical Society. He is also a member of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) and the Chemical Practice Subcommittee of AIPLA, the Association Internationale pour la Protection de la Propriété Intellectuelle (AIPPI), the Jewish Federation, the U.S. Patent Office’s Chemical and Biotechnology Customer Partnership, and other professional organizations.

Mr. Goldberg received his J.D. degree from The George Washington University (1999) and his B.S. degree in Chemical Engineering with a minor in Environmental Engineering from Washington University in St. Louis (1996). Mr. Goldberg is registered to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and is admitted to practice before the Bars of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the District of Columbia. Mr. Goldberg is also admitted to practice before the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and the Superior and Inferior Courts of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

This Post Has 0 Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Recent Stories

Nevada announces winners of provisional cannabis lounge licenses

A new generation of potential cannabis leaders learned Wednesday they had won a coveted provisional license to operate a consumption lounge through a process local advocates touted as a beacon…

Fyllo: Connecting a Cannabis Flywheel

A consumer data marketplace. An advertising and promotions platform. A compliance tool. A regulatory database. This is not a checklist of software and digital technologies that cannabis companies should consider,…

Patenting Cannabis Genes: Three Ways To Protect New Cultivars

By Paul Coble, Attorney at Harris Bricken Many cannabis companies spend significant resources developing new cannabis cultivars or refining popular strain genetics. As they do so, more and more are…

As Its Neighbours Seek Legalisation, Poland’s Medical Cannabis & Hemp Industry Could Also Flourish Next Year

EARLIER this month Czechia’s drug commissioner Jindřich Vobořil announced his intention to submit draft legislation for an adult-use cannabis market by the end of the year, hoping a fully fledged…

More Categories

Back To Top
×Close search