Weed dating minnesota
Weed dating minnesota
However, unlike other states, California’s trademark law has a stated intent “to provide a system of state trademark registration and protection substantially consistent with the federal system of trademark registration and protection under the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U. Read together, these two provisions dictate that trademarks that could not be registered with the USPTO cannot be registered in California either. For example, in a federal trademark application for the mark “Z WEED” (SN 86893120), the applicant described its goods strictly in terminology accepted by the USPTO: “Herbs for medicinal purposes; Medicinal herbal extracts for medical purposes; Medicinal herbal preparations; Medicinal herbs; Medicinal herbs in dried or preserved form; Plant extracts for medical, veterinary and pharmaceutical purposes; Plant extracts for pharmaceutical purposes; Psychotropics.” Nevertheless, in an ensuing office action, the examining attorney rejected registration of the mark, finding “the applied-for mark is not in lawful use in commerce” because the specimen included a depiction of a marijuana leaf, and because “the wording contained in the applied-for mark, namely, ‘WEED,’ plainly indicates that applicant’s identified goods include items that are prohibited by the CSA …” Even without a damning specimen of use, intent-to-use applications have fared no better before the USPTO. may never be the holders of a federal trademark even if the trademark applied for is for use in connection with legal goods” (citing Applicant's Brief).
Applicant does not intend for the goods to be primarily intended or designed for [prohibited purposes].” Subsequently, the applicant submitted specimens in showing use in Class 05 with no discernible reference to marijuana, and on clothing and various pieces of paraphernalia (including a vaporizer called “the doobie”), and the mark proceeded to register.Defendants in federal trademark litigation have invoked a defense of invalidity under such circumstances, and can be expected to continue to do so.Moreover, an applicant’s responses to UPSTO inquiries during the registration process could provide a separate basis for invalidation of the registration (including valid uses) based on a theory of fraud upon the trademark office.Notably, those prior recreational use states also have provisions comparable to California’s §14235, requiring conformity with USPTO classifications. ID # 20161093519 (Gorilla Glue logo for a medical cannabis strain in Class 31); Oregon Reg. 43635 (juju joints for “smokeless marijuana or cannabis vaporizer apparatus” in Class 34); WA file # 56638 (“The Joint” for marijuana / cannabis in Class 31). However, concerns such as the inability to police incoming trademark applications, or the potential problem of marijuana-based products competing with their non-marijuana-based counterparts tend to counsel in favor of California’s separate classification for marijuana-related marks to keep them more organized. Marijuana Trademark Registrations in California versus Current Alternatives Many of the benefits of the federal registration system are unavailable at the state level, such as the ability to file intent-to-use applications, which reserves marks despite a lack of use and treats such unused marks as being first used nationwide as of the application date.In fact, because obtaining state trademark registrations is often so rote, requiring little to no examination in most states, registrations that could not be obtained federally due to the CSA are routinely registered even in states where recreational marijuana is not yet legal. The framers of the Model State Trademark Act, adopted almost uniformly by all states, decided that allowing intent-to-use-marks at the state level could create chaos, and they declined to include intent-to-use provisions in the Act.California/USPTO Aligned Against Legality of Marijuana Goods and Services Because federal trademark law does not necessarily preempt state trademark law, all 50 states have enacted some form of state-based trademark registration and enforcement system. 1051, ), as amended.” California Business and Professions Code (BPC) §14272. 2016), it remained unclear whether a mark also used in association with cannabis products had any protection from refusal of applications pertaining to non-cannabis products.
In line with all other states, California’s Model State Trademark Law provides for the registration of trademarks and service marks with the Secretary of State. In addition (like most other states), California’s state trademark law also provides that: “The classification of goods and services shall conform to the classifications adopted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office.” California BPC §14235. The USPTO’s rationale is that valid trademark use, which requires a lawful use in commerce, cannot subsist in illegal activity. Indeed, the applicant in that case argued that the USPTO’s position seemed to be that “those who may also sell substances illegal under the CSA …Aside from this hiccup, the USPTO’s stated policy has always been and continues to be to refuse all trademark applications for marijuana-based goods and services as illegal under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which prohibits, among other things, manufacturing, distributing, dispensing or possessing certain controlled substances, including marijuana and marijuana-based preparations, and makes it unlawful to sell drug paraphernalia. are prohibited by the CSA,” and concluded, therefore, that “applicant does not have a Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) §907 (“For applications based on Trademark Act Section 1(b), 44, or 66(a), if the record indicates that the mark or the identified goods or services are unlawful, actual lawful use in commerce is not possible.”). Thus, it now appears clear that with respect to identifications that could apply to marijuana-based or non-marijuana-based goods or services, an applicant’s registration is vulnerable to invalidity if a registration is obtained through a specimen showing the mark in association with legal goods or services fitting the description, if the applicant was also using (or subsequently used) the mark illegally under that description.Notably, this particular office action also contained language commonly used by the USPTO, stating “anygoods or services to which the mark is applied must comply with all applicable federal laws,” and adding “if the items or activities that the mark is intended to be used in connection with are unlawful, actual lawful use in commerce is not possible,” suggesting the USPTO believes that if the mark is used in association with Office Action refusing intent-to-use application for “BODYBUD BOTANICALS” (SN 86427110) as applied to goods “of the type commonly known in the trade as ‘marijuana edibles,’” despite the examining attorney’s admission that it was “unclear whether these goods do or will have marijuana infusions in them.” TTAB’s , 119 U. In addition, the decision authoritatively rejected related arguments based on the legality of marijuana under state law by stating, “the fact that the provision of a product or service may be lawful within a state is irrelevant to the question of federal registration when it is unlawful under federal law,” and adding “regardless of individual state laws that may provide for legal activities involving marijuana, marijuana and its psychoactive component, THC, remain Schedule I controlled substances under federal law and are subject to the CSA's prohibitions.” , at 1351. 64 (AB 64) was introduced to California’s legislature, with the stated purpose of (1) furthering the intent of the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA), a voter-enacted initiative legalizing recreational use and commercial sale of marijuana, and (2) reconciling that law with earlier laws addressing medical marijuana, dating back to the passage of the California Compassionate Use Act in 1996, when California became the first state in the nation to allow the use of medical cannabis.Since then, 29 states have legalized medical marijuana, and 8 states and the District of Columbia have legalized marijuana for recreational use.For these reasons, seeking federal registration for goods and services under which a mark is being used in potential violation of the CSA may not be worthwhile.