Tag Archives: growing

Richard Naiberg
Quality From Canada

Protecting Intellectual Property in Canada: A Practical Guide, Part 6

By Richard Naiberg
No Comments
Richard Naiberg

Editor’s Note: This is the sixth and final article in a series by Richard Naiberg where he discusses how cannabis businesses can protect their intellectual property in Canada. Part 1 introduced the topic and examined the use of trade secrets in business and Part 2 went into how business owners can protect new technologies and inventions through applying for patents. Part 3 raised the issue of plant breeders’ rights and Part 4 discussed trademarks and protecting brand identity. Part 5 took a detailed look at copyright laws for cannabis companies and how they can protect works of creative expression.  

In Part 6, the conclusion of this series, we take a look at nine key takeaways from the series:We hope you enjoyed this series and found the information provided to be useful. If you’d like to learn more about intellectual property law in Canada as it relates to the cannabis industry, feel free to reach out to Richard Naiberg at rnaiberg@goodmans.ca 

Summary of Practical Considerations For Cannabis Producers

  1. Cannabis producers should establish procedures by which the technological innovations achieved by their employees are kept confidential and are quickly reported to management for consideration as to whether the innovation should be protected as a trade secret, by patent, by plant breeder’s right or not protected at all.
  2. If a trade secret protection is desired, the producer must invoke systems that limit knowledge of the secrets to those in the company with a need to know it, and make sure that departing employees understand their obligations of confidentiality and do not take any documentation of the secrets with them when they go.
  3. The nature of the innovation under consideration will drive the choice between a patent and a plant breeder’s right. Plant breeder’s rights only protect whole plants. Patents protect other innovations, subject to the limitations described above. Patents may be drafted to protect whole plants, albeit indirectly: a patent on genetic sequences or engineered cell can be infringed by a whole plant that incorporates those sequences or cells.
  4. The decision as to whether to file an application for a patent or a plant breeder’s right, and in what jurisdiction(s), should be made with careful consideration of whether the producer will employ the invention/variety in its business (and in what countries), as well as the potential value of the invention/variety to other producers who may eventually become licensees of the resulting patent(s) or plant breeder’s right.
  5. Cannabis producers must remain up-to-date on patent and plant breeder’s rights applications that are filed in the jurisdictions in which they operate so as to be in a position to identify patents and plant breeder’s rights that will potentially affect their freedom to operate. Such due diligence will also allow the producer to predict the technological and business focuses of their competitors.
  6. Cannabis producers must select a trademark that is immediately distinctive or can quickly become distinctive of its goods and services. The trademarks ought to be fully available, in the sense that they are not in use by any competing business in any of the jurisdictions in which the producer intends to do business. Ideally, the trademark ought to be available as a domain name to ensure that there is no confusion on the Internet.
  7. Once the trademark is selected, the cannabis producer should make consistent and extensive use of that trademark. The more consistent and ubiquitous the use, the stronger the producer’s brand and trademark will be.
  8. The owner of the trademark must routinely conduct searches to ensure that no third party is using a trademark that is similar that of the owner. If such unauthorized use is discovered, the owner must act quickly to restrain that use or potentially license the use.
  9. Cannabis producers ought to contract to ensure that they are the first owners or assignees of any copyright subsisting in the artwork, literature and websites the company creates or hires other to create. Producers ought also to obtain waivers of the moral rights of any authors of this work.

We hope you enjoyed this series and found the information provided to be useful. If you’d like to learn more about intellectual property law in Canada as it relates to the cannabis industry, feel free to reach out to Richard Naiberg at rnaiberg@goodmans.ca

Midterm Elections Bring Green Wave of Legalization

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments

On Election Night in America, pundits on the news media were reporting on the blue wave of Democrats taking back control of the House of Representatives, a less-discussed green wave made its way through the ballots in a number of states. While not as big of a tidal force as we saw back in 2016, this election still brought a handful of states on the cannabis legalization train.

Measure 3 in North Dakota failed to get enough votes, but many seem to think this was somewhat expected, as the state is still working on implementing their medical framework years later and that this new measure was less than perfect.

However, here comes the good news: Missouri voters passed Amendment 2, which legalizes, regulates and taxes medical cannabis. Very interestingly, this measure includes language allowing for caregivers to grow up to six plants. Check out Tom Angell’s article on Forbes to learn more.

In Utah, Proposition 2 passed by a narrower margin than other states, but legislators in the state are already full steam ahead on legalizing medical cannabis. They planned to pass a bill with the same language in Prop 2 if it didn’t get enough votes. Regardless, Utah will begin working on implementing a regulatory framework for legal medical cannabis, per the voters’ request.

While the 2016 election saw a handful of states legalize recreational cannabis, only one state did so this time around: Michigan. Voters in Michigan passed Proposal 1, making it the ninth state in the country to legalize and regulate recreational cannabis. According to Matthew Schweich, deputy director of the Marijuana Policy Project, Michigan’s legalization is a major milestone for the country. “The passage of Proposal 1 is a major milestone for marijuana policy reform in the U.S. Michigan will be the first state in the Midwest to end marijuana prohibition and replace it with a system in which marijuana is regulated for adult use,” says Schweich. “Michigan is going to demonstrate that regulating marijuana works, and it will set a strong example for other states in the region and around the country.”

Ellice Ogle headshot

Designing a Recall Plan for Your Company

By Ellice Ogle
No Comments
Ellice Ogle headshot

Bearing through four voluntarily recalls in the first two months since the transition window ended, the California cannabis industry showed its commitment to providing safe goods for its consumers. Recalls are considered the removal of products deemed unsafe at the point of retail. With unsafe product already on shelves, it is that much more important to have a thought out strategy if a recall need arises. Currently, the California Department of Public Health-Manufactured Cannabis Safety Branch is the only regulatory agency in the state of California with recall stipulations for California cannabis companies. Thus, the onus is on individual cannabis companies to initiate their own recall plans.

Why establish a recall plan if one is not compulsory? To start, a cannabis product recall is more challenging than recalls in other industries because of the classification as a Schedule 1 drug and the misunderstanding and stigma of the drug that promotes fake news. These considerations affect the way both the government officials and consumers perceive cannabis recalls – not preparing ahead of time could be devastating to your brand. Furthermore, a recall is not just a one day headache – in December 2017, the Inspector General of Department of Health and Human Services  found that food companies took 57 days on average to initiate a recall after the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) first learned a product was potentially hazardous. Not only is a recall tricky to navigate and time intensive, a recall can also be costly – a joint study by the Food Marketing Institute (FMI) and the Grocery Manufacturers’ Association (GMA) in the USA found that 77% of the study respondents estimated the financial impact to be up to $30 million dollars; 23% reported even higher costs. One major factor of the financial impact to consider is that many retailers do not remove only the affected products, instead sweeping entire lines and brands. To estimate how much a food recall would cost your company, researchers Moises Resende-Filho and Brian Burr developed a model to estimate the direct costs of a food recall. To take a step back, it is true that, while recalls can be tricky to navigate, time intensive and costly, recalls are generally infrequent. At the same time, you never know where or when a recall could happen. For example, your manufacturing process might be flawless, but a supplier may suddenly issue a recall or the retail facility is compromised. Moreover, not all recalls are equal – imagine that consumers would react differently to an undeclared allergen on the label versus a life threatening pathogen in a product distributed to patients with weakened immune systems. Ergo, it is strategic for every cannabis company (grower, manufacturer, retail, etc.) to have a recall plan to be ready for any type of recall situation.

Take these 6 tips in designing a recall plan:

Food processing and sanitation
Product recalls due to manufacturing errors in sanitation cause mistrust among consumers.

Before a Recall

1) Be familiar with how recalls work by staying up to date with recalls

2) Write a recall plan. Select a recall template and fill in your company information, but also take into consideration any regulations on recalls at the federal, state, and county levels.

During a Recall

3) Record everything that was said and done. If there was no prewritten recall plan, during a recall is a good time as any to begin documenting all actions and communication – internal within the management team and external with business partners (suppliers, retailers) and external with the consumers.

4) Find the flaw in the product. Why is the product being recalled? This is important to know, whether it was your item or not, to better answer the next question of “What happens with the recalled product?” The most common causes for a recall in the USA are identified in the joint study mentioned above by the FMI and GMA.

After a Recall

5) Reevaluate the recall plan. Compare to a reputable third-party auditing standard (example here is Safe Quality Food Institute’s SQF Food Safety Code for Manufacturing Edition 8). Updates to the recall plan are inevitable and constant. The changes may be due to updates in company products, adjustments in the recall network or the experience gained when going through a recall. Also keep an eye out for updates to templates of recall plans. Conduct mock recalls with different recall origins.

6) Reevaluate the food safety plan. After finding the flaw in the product, identify the flaw in the process and improve. Examples to improve the food safety plan may be to: amend the supplier approval program, refine process flow, polish the sanitation program or revise the preventative maintenance program. The foundation of a recall plan is having a robust food safety plan to minimize the risk of running a recall.

California Midterm Ballots To Bring Green Wave of Cannabis Tax Regulations

By Jasmine Davaloo
No Comments

As state and local jurisdictions rake in millions of dollars in tax revenue from the state’s legal cannabis industry, new states, counties and cities are piling onto the cannabis tax bandwagon. There are currently hundreds of local cannabis business taxes in place in California. On the November ballots, there are 47 new local cannabis tax measures. In fact, even some local jurisdictions that outlaw cannabis operations want a piece of the green pie and are asking voters to impose cannabis business taxes.

More cannabis tax measures being passed means more regulations and compliance responsibilities for cannabis businesses. This is especially taxing (pun intended) for multi-licensed and multi-location cannabis businesses. With hefty monetary penalties and even revocation of business licenses as consequences of noncompliance, adherence to state and local tax regulations is of paramount concern to cannabis businesses. Below is a list that Taxnexus has put together showing all of the cannabis tax measures on the November 6 ballots in California:

Taxnexus is an automated transaction-to-treasury cannabis tax compliance solution for the entire cannabis supply chain that provides point-of-sale state and local cannabis sales and use tax calculation, tax data management as the authority of record, and timely filing of returns with all applicable taxing authorities.

California City and County Cannabis Tax Measures November 6, 2018 Ballots

City County Measure Name Proposal
Adelanto San Bernardino S Adelanto Marijuana Tax To authorize the city to impose a tax on marijuana businesses of up to $5.00 per square foot on nurseries and up to 5% on other businesses.
Atascadero San Luis Obispo E-18 Atascadero Cannabis Business Tax To impose a tax on cannabis businesses at annual rates not to exceed $10.00 per canopy square foot for cultivation, 10% of gross receipts for retail cannabis businesses, 2.5% for testing laboratories, 3% for distribution businesses, and 6% of gross receipts for all other cannabis businesses.
Atwater Merced A Atwater Marijuana Tax To authorize the city to impose a 15% tax on marijuana businesses.
Benicia Solano E Benicia Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the city to impose a tax of up to $10 per square foot for marijuana nurseries and 6% of gross receipts for other marijuana businesses.
Capitola Santa Cruz I Capitola Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the city to tax marijuana businesses at a rate of up to 7% with no expiration date to fund general city purposes.
Chula Vista San Diego Q Chula Vista Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the city to tax marijuana businesses at the following rates: 5% to 15% of gross receipts or $5 to $25 per square foot for cultivation.
Colfax Placer C City of Colfax Cannabis Business Tax To tax cannabis businesses at annual rates not to exceed $10.00 per canopy square foot for cultivation (adjustable for inflation), 6% of gross receipts for retail cannabis businesses, and 4% for all other cannabis businesses.
Colton San Bernardino U Colton Marijuana Tax To authorize the city to impose a tax on marijuana businesses of up to $25.00 per square foot on nurseries and up to 10% on other businesses.
Emeryville Alameda S Emeryville Marijuana Business Tax To enact a marijuana business tax at a rate of up to 6% of gross receipts to fund general city purposes.
Fresno Fresno A Fresno Marijuana Business Tax To tax marijuana businesses at rates of up to $12 per canopy square foot and up to 10% of gross receipts for medical dispensaries and other marijuana businesses, with revenue dedicated to the city’s general fund an a community benefit fund.
Goleta Santa Barbara Z2018 Goleta Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the city to tax marijuana businesses at the following initial rates with a cap at 10% of sales: 5% for retailers; 4% for cultivators; 2% for manufacturers; and 1% for distributors/nurseries.
Hanford Kings C Hanford Cannabis Business Tax To tax cannabis businesses at an annual maximum rate of $7 per square foot of canopy for cultivation businesses using artificial lighting only, $4 per square foot of canopy for cultivation businesses using a combination of artificial and natural lighting, $2 per square foot of canopy for cultivation businesses using natural lighting only, and $1 per square foot of canopy for nurseries, 1% of gross receipts of laboratories, 4% of gross receipts of retail sales, 2% of gross receipts of distribution and 2.5% of gross receipts of all other types of cannabis businesses.
Hesperia San Bernardino T Hesperia Marijuana Tax To authorize the city to impose a tax on marijuana businesses of up to $15.00 per square foot on nurseries and up to 6% on other businesses.
La Mesa San Diego V La Mesa Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the city to tax marijuana businesses at rates of up to 6% gross receipts and up to $10 per square foot of cultivation.
Lassen Lassen M Lassen County Commercial Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the county to enact a tax on commercial marijuana at rates of between $0.50 to $3.00 per square foot for cultivation and 2.5% to 8% on gross receipts for other businesses, such as retail, distribution, manufacturing, processing, and testing.
Lompoc Santa Barbara D2018 Lompoc Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the city tax marijuana businesses at the following rates: $0.06 per $1 of non-medical retail sales proceeds; $0.01 per $1 of cultivation proceeds; $15,000 for net income less than $2 million of manufacturing/distribution proceeds; $30,000 for net income $2 Million or more of manufacturing/distribution proceeds; a total aggregate tax of $0.06 per $1.00 of microbusinesses proceeds; and no tax on testing.
Malibu Los Angeles G Malibu Marijuana Business Authorization and Tax To authorize the sale of recreational marijuana in the city and imposing a general tax at the rate of 2.5% of gross receipts on the sale of recreational marijuana.
Marina Monterey V Marina Marijuana Business Tax To authorize marijuana businesses to operate in the city and authorizing the city to tax marijuana businesses at rates of up to 5% of gross receipts, with revenue funding general city purposes.
Maywood Los Angeles CT Maywood Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the city to tax marijuana businesses at a maximum rate of 10% of gross receipts to fund general city purposes.
Moreno Valley Riverside M City of Moreno Valley Commercial Cannabis Activity Tax To enact a tax on cannabis sales and cultivation, not exceeding 8% of gross receipts and $15 per square foot of cultivation.
Morgan Hill Santa Clara I Morgan Hill Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the city to tax marijuana businesses at annual rates up to $15.00 per canopy square foot for cultivation and up to 10% of gross receipts for all other marijuana businesses.
Mountain View Santa Clara Q Mountain View Marijuana Business Tax To enact a tax on marijuana businesses of up to 9% of gross receipts to fund general city purposes.
Oakland Alameda V Oakland Marijuana Business Tax Amendments To amend the marijuana business tax law to: allow marijuana business to deduct the cost of raw materials from their gross receipts and to pay taxes on a quarterly basis; and allow the city council to amend the law in any manner that does not increase the tax rate.
Oroville Butte T Oroville Marijuana Tax To authorize an annual gross receipts tax on cannabis businesses at rate not to exceed 1%, with initial rates of 5% on retailers and manufacturers; 4% on cultivators; 3% on distributors; 2% on nurseries; 0% on testing laboratories; and 7% on microbusiness to generate approximately $300,000 to $600,000 in annual revenue.
Paso Robles San Luis Obispo I-18 Paso Robles Cannabis Business Tax To impose a maximum tax rate on every person or entity operating or conducting a cannabis business within the City a cultivation tax of up to$20.00 per square foot of space utilized in connection with the cultivation and processing of cannabis; a gross receipts tax of up to 10% for all cannabis transportation; a gross receipts tax of up to 15% for all cannabis manufacturing, testing, and distribution; and a gross receipts tax of up to 10% for dispensaries.
Pomona Los Angeles PC Pomona Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the city to tax marijuana businesses at rates of $10.00 per canopy square foot for cultivation and up to 6% of gross receipts for all other marijuana businesses to fund general city purposes.
Riverbank Stanislaus B City of Riverbank Cannabis Business License Tax To authorize the City Council of the City to impose a business license tax at a rate of up to 10% of gross receipts on cannabis businesses and dispensaries, to help fund general municipal services.
San Bernardino San Bernardino W San Bernardino Marijuana Tax To authorize the city to impose a tax on marijuana businesses of up to $10.00 per square foot on nurseries and up to 6% on other businesses.
San Diego San Diego AA City Council Marijuana Business Tax Measure To authorize the city to tax marijuana businesses at the following rates: $14 per square foot; up to 8% on manufacturing and distribution; up to 10% on medicinal retail; up to 12% on adult-use retail; and up to 3.5% on testing.
San Francisco San Francisco D San Francisco Marijuana Business Tax Increase To tax marijuana businesses with gross receipts over $500,000 at a rate between 1% and 5%, exempting retail sales of medical marijuana, and expanding the marijuana business tax to businesses not physically located in San Francisco.
Santa Ana Orange Y Santa Ana Recreational Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the city to tax marijuana businesses at rates of $0.25 to $35.00 for gross square footage and up to 10 percent for cultivating, manufacturing, distributing, selling, or testing.
Santa Clara Santa Clara M Santa Clara Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the city to tax commercial marijuana businesses up to 10% of gross receipts and up to $25 per square foot for cultivation.
Simi Valley Ventura Q Cannabis Business Tax To enact a maximum tax on gross receipts of cannabis businesses in the City after January 1, 2019, as follows: for testing, 2.5%; for retail sales, retail delivery, or microbusiness retail, 6%; for distribution not to consumers, 3%; for manufacturing, processing or nonretail microbusiness, and any other type of business not otherwise specified, 4%; and for cultivation, a tax per square foot of canopy ranging from $2.00 per square foot of canopy to $10.00 per square foot of canopy, depending on the type of lighting (artificial or natural) used.
Solvang Santa Barbara F2018 Solvang Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the city to tax marijuana businesses at an initial rate of 5 percent of gross receipts with a cap of 10 percent and a maximum annual increase of 1 percent.
Sonora Tuolumne N City of Sonora Cannabis Business License Tax To enact a business license tax at a rate of up to 15% of gross receipts on cannabis businesses, to help fund general municipal services; and increasing the City’s appropriations limit for the Fiscal Years 2019-2023 by the amount of tax proceeds received.
Suisun Solano C Suisun Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the city to impose a tax of up to $25 per square foot and 15% gross receipts for marijuana businesses.
Union City Alameda DD Union City Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the city to tax marijuana businesses at rates of $12.00 per square foot for cultivation and 6 percent of gross receipts for other businesses to fund general municipal services.
Vista San Diego Z Vista Retail Medical Marijuana Sales and Tax Initiative (November 2018) To authorize commercial retails sales of medicinal marijuana for up to 11 retailers and enacting a 7% tax on the business’ gross receipts.
Contra Costa R Contra Costa County Marijuana Business Tax To authorize Contra Costa County to tax commercial marijuana businesses in the unincorporated area in the amount of up to $7.00 per canopy square foot for cultivation and up to 4 percent gross receipts for all other cannabis businesses to fund general County expenses.
El Dorado N, P, Q, R, S Commercial Cannabis Tax Measures To impose a general tax on any independently authorized commercial cannabis activity in the unincorporated areas of El Dorado County at rates up to: $30 per square foot or 15% for cultivation; 10% for distribution, manufacturing, and retail; and 5% for testing laboratories, effective until amended or repealed, with estimated annual revenue of $1,900,000 to $52,800,000.

To authorize outdoor and mixed-light (greenhouse) commercial cannabis cultivation for medicinal use on parcels of at least 10 acres zoned Rural Lands, Planned Agricultural, Limited Agricultural, and Agricultural Grazing that are restricted in canopy size, required to pay a County commercial cannabis tax, and subject to a site-specific review and discretionary permitting process with notification to surrounding property owners and environmental regulation.

To authorize outdoor and mixed-light (greenhouse) commercial cannabis cultivation for recreational adult use on parcels of at least 10 acres zoned Rural Lands, Planned Agricultural, Limited Agricultural, and Agricultural Grazing that are restricted in canopy size, required to pay a County commercial cannabis tax, and subject to a site-specific review and discretionary permitting process with notification to surrounding property owners and environmental regulation.

To authorize the retail sale, delivery, distribution, and indoor cultivation of commercial cannabis for medicinal use on parcels zoned Community Commercial, Regional Commercial, General Commercial, Industrial High, and Industrial Low that are restricted in number and concentration, required to pay a County commercial cannabis tax, and subject to a site-specific review and discretionary permitting process with notification to surrounding property owners and environmental regulation.

To authorize the retail sale, delivery, distribution, and indoor cultivation of commercial cannabis for recreational adult use on parcels zoned Community Commercial, Regional Commercial, General Commercial, Industrial High, and Industrial Low that are restricted in number and concentration, required to pay a County commercial cannabis tax, and subject to a site-specific review and discretionary permitting process with notification to surrounding property owners and environmental regulation.
Lake K Lake County Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the county to enact a marijuana business tax at the rates of $1.00 per square foot for nurseries and cultivators and between 2.5% and 4% for other businesses.
San Joaquin B Unincorporated County of San Joaquin Cannabis Business Tax To impose a special tax on commercial cannabis businesses in unincorporated San Joaquin County at a rate of 3.5% to 8% of gross receipts, with an additional cultivation tax of $2.00 per square foot of cultivation space.
Tuolumne M Tuolumne County Commercial Cannabis Business Tax The County to impose a 0%-15% gross receipts tax on commercial cannabis businesses (but no less than $0-$15 per square foot for cultivation businesses as annually increased by a consumer price index) in the unincorporated area of Tuolumne County, and to authorize the Board of Supervisors to implement and adjust the tax at its discretion, with funds staying local for unrestricted general revenue purposes, including but not limited to public safety, health,environmental protection and addressing industry impacts, unless repealed or amended by voters.

Greece Gets Growing

By Marguerite Arnold
No Comments

The Greek government changed the law on medical cannabis as recently as February of this year. Now it has issued its first cultivation license.

Who Is The First Beneficiary?

The lucky (first but far from last) firm to receive a cultivation license? Intriguingly, a South American-Canadian cultivation company called ICC Cannabis Corp.

The most recent agreement received from the Greek government supersedes and augments its previous hemp cultivation license in the country. The license, however is not final yet but rather a conditional pre-approval for medical cannabis cultivation.Things in Greece are proceeding fast with no internal or external opposition.

The company already has secured a 16 acre grow facility in Northern Greece. ICC also has a distribution network of over 35,000 pharmacies spread across 16 countries which it says will “complement” its current Greek victory.

ICC will pay USD $200,000 in connection with the license issuance, pay a finder’s fee and issue 12 million shares.

Company executives are quick to point out that the success is a result of staff cultivating close relationships with local politicians.

The ICC of course is not the only company now engaged in solidifying their business opportunities in Greece. Hexo, a Canadian LP with about a million feet of grow space at home by end of 2018, in partnership with local Greek QNBS, is also rapidly moving to establish a 350,000 square foot growing facility in country as well. With a similar eye, it should be added on the European medical market.

European Legal Cultivation Is Exploding

Medical cultivation, in other words, is getting underway regionally, with authority. And the bulk of such crops not consumed locally, are already being primed for export to more expensive labour markets across the continent with increasing demand for high quality, low cost, medical grade.

Not only is this procedural development fast and relatively efficient, it sets up a serious competitor within the EU to provide cheap flower, oil and other processed cannabis products to a continent that is now starting to place bulk orders as individual countries struggle with the issue of how much local cultivation to allow and what patient conditions should be covered.

Even more interesting, at least so far, are a lack of punitive punishments being meted out to the country from the EU for considering this economic route to self-sufficiency again. That is not true for Albania, in direct contrast, which is being penalized with its membership to the Union on the line, for the level of black market cannabis grown in the country.

That said, it might also be the progress of Greek cultivation that has caused such a furore – led by France in Brussels within the EU. A country far behind regional leaders on reform it is worth noting. Even on medical.

A Quick History Of Cannabis Reform In Greece

Greek politicians decided fairly early as the cannabis ball got rolling in Europe that the industry was the perfect cash injection to an economy still emerging from troubled times and massive financial defaults. In fact, Greek officials are estimating that legalizing the medical industry here will inject approximately USD$2 billion into the country’s economy.

It could be, of course, much higher. Especially when exports are added to medical tourist consumption.

The amazing thing so far, for all the other issues in just about every other legalizing country within the EU of late? Things in Greece are proceeding fast with no internal or external opposition.

Who Is ICC?

The firm used to be known by the hard to pronounce Kaneh Bosm Bio Technology and Shogun Capital Corp. The firm has an interesting footprint with production in Uruguay but already exporting CBD and other derivatives to the Canadian market, including via a deal with Emblem Cannabis.

The company began trading on the TSX Venture exchange in November 2016. In late September, the company announced that it was also securing a 55-acre grow facility in Denmark, with other Canadian cannabis heavyweights like Canopy, Aurora and Green Dutchman Holdings.

FSC logo

Edibles Discussion Comes To Food Safety Consortium

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments
FSC logo

The Food Safety Consortium, taking place November 13-15 in Schaumburg, Illinois, will host a series of talks geared towards the cannabis industry this year. The newly launched Cannabis Quality Track features a number of panels and presentations designed to highlight the many intersections between food safety and cannabis.

Jenna Rice, Director of Operations at Gron Artisan Chocolates
Jenna Rice, Director of Operations at Gron Artisan Chocolates

The track will have presentations discussing food safety planning in cannabis manufacturing, HACCP, GMPs, regulatory compliance and supply chain issues among other areas.

Ben Gelt, board chair of the Cannabis Certification Council, is moderating a panel titled What’s In My Weed? that will delve into issues like supply chain, production and other difficulties in creating cannabis products and the challenges inherent in teaching consumers to be more discerning.

Ben Gelt, Board Chair of the Cannabis Certification Council
Ben Gelt, Board Chair of the Cannabis Certification Council

Panelists will include:

Kimberly Stuck, Founder of Allay Compliance Consulting
Kimberly Stuck, Founder of Allay Compliance Consulting

Ben Gelt and the Cannabis Certification Council orchestrated the development of this panel to help promote their #WhatsInMyWeed consumer awareness and education campaign. “The Cannabis Certification Council believes consumer education campaigns like #Whatsinmyweed are critical to drive standards and transparency like we see in food,” says Gelt. “What better place to discuss the food safety challenges the cannabis industry faces than the Food Safety Consortium”

Before Kim Stuck founded Allay Compliance Consulting, she was the first Marijuana Specialist for a public health authority in the nation, where she was working with regulators in Denver, Colorado. She is currently a cannabis food safety expert and a Certified Professional of Food Safety (CP-FS) through NEHA. She has helped Colorado and California develop cannabis food safety requirements. “I will discuss pitfalls we have experienced in the regulation of cannabis in Denver and what mistakes not to make,” says Stuck. “I’d also like to talk about how to be prepared for when those regulators start to come in to facilities.”

Kristen Hill, MIP Director at Native Roots Dispensary
Kristen Hill, MIP Director at Native Roots Dispensary

Kristen Hill is the MIP Director at Native Roots, arguably one of the largest dispensary chains in the world. She oversees 30 employees in Native Roots’ MIP facility where product testing and quality assurance of products are all led under her guidance. Her background includes managing quality assurance and regulatory compliance with FDA regulations, among other areas. She said she’s particularly excited to talk about implementing manufacturing best practices in the cannabis space. “Cannabis is maturing and is beginning to shape operations around long standing best practices in other industries,” says Hill.

Leslie Siu, Founder and CEO of Mother & Clone
Leslie Siu, Founder and CEO of Mother & Clone

Leslie Siu brings to the panel 17 years of liquor, tobacco and pharma marketing and operational oversight plus global digital and experiential campaigns. Her company, Mother & Clone, produces infused, sublingual cannabis sprays. Based in Colorado, Mother & Clone’s team of biochemists are Merck alumni, currently working towards GMP standards in preparation for Canada, slated to be on shelf in the spring of 2019. Her main consideration for cannabis product development comes from what she has learned from the FDA in traditional industries- what they will and will not tolerate.

To learn more about the panel, other topics presented and see the full agenda for the upcoming Food Safety Consortium, click here.

East Coast Market Update

By Lindsay Engle
No Comments

There are going to be some states that are less progressive in the pro-cannabis movement, the same way there were states that were slow to move past alcohol prohibition. This is normal for any country moving towards change, better economic standing and safer healthcare.

There are only four states that completely ban recreational and medical cannabis altogether, and those states are Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, and South Dakota. Although, there is no doubt that more and more states are moving towards a pro-recreational and medical cannabis stance. There are some states in the Northeast that are making strides to legalize cannabis.

Most of the states in the Northeast already have some form of medical cannabis law in the books already, but some are moving towards recreational legalization surprisingly quickly. Massachusetts already has legalized recreational cannabis and is setting up their regulatory framework currently while Vermont, New Jersey and New York, all of which already have medical laws, appear to be just steps away from legalizing it recreationally.

Northeast States Moving Towards Legalization

With Canada’s recent recreational legalization, a number of states just south of the border appear to be eyeing the issue for themselves. While some of these states have somewhat strict regulations in place, they look like promising emerging market opportunities.

New Jersey

New Jersey is closer than ever to legalizing recreational cannabis. Governor Phil Murphy built his campaign on the pledge to end cannabis prohibition. Murphy says having recreational cannabis legalized this year is his goal.

Murphy says that he wants legal recreational cannabis to be available because he believes it is a way to improve social justice in New Jersey and to bring the state new tax revenue. The biggest issue is what the legislation will look like and how it can be tied to expanding the states medicinal cannabis program.

New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy
New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy

Their current medical program, while still small in market size, appears to be gaining steam and growing in terms of patients getting access. Six months ago, The New Jersey Department of Health added a number of qualifying conditions patients can get a cannabis prescription for. The program still has its limits, like a 10% THC potency cap, small selection of types of products and other various restrictions.

New York

It was just last year when Governor Andrew Cuomo said cannabis was a “gateway drug” and he was opposed to legalization. After conducting a study on cannabis legalization, the result was a July Health Department report that determined the positive effects of legalization outweighs the potential negative impacts.

The debate between Andrew Cuomo and Cynthia Nixon in the gubernatorial race has highlighted their views of cannabis as well as other important issues; it’s important that New Yorkers vote in the primary election to have the best opportunity for the future.

If New York legalizes recreational cannabis, it could open up a huge new market. Medical cannabis users will likely see a price drop in their medication. Similar kinds of restrictions that plague the New Jersey market are also affecting medical patients in New York. Currently, smoking and edibles are both prohibited even for patients. Back in 2017, the state added chronic pain to its list of qualifying conditions, undoubtedly increasing the number of patients.

Companies with large amounts of capital are planting their flags in New York, like MedMen’s dispensary in Manhattan, even if the medical market might still be in its infancy.

MassachusettsOver the next six months, this market will be one to watch closely

Recreational cannabis became legalin the last couple months for Massachusetts, while the state legalized medical cannabis some time ago. Their medical program is relatively advanced compared to New York or New Jersey. Online registration, a large number of qualifying conditions, and a less restrictive business environment seemed to encourage a much larger number of patients and businesses supporting them.

Regulators in Massachusetts are currently consideringthe option of allowing delivery operations for the recreational market. The roll out for the recreational industry might seem somewhat slow, but regulators are tackling a wide range of issues and making considerable progress towards the highly anticipated recreational market opening. Just last week, regulators issued licenses to two cannabis-testing laboratories, and, according to the Boston Globe, the debut could be just weeks away.

While the industry and regulators get ready for the recreational debut, a recent crackdown on pesticide usehighlighted some of the growing pains that come with it. Over the next six months, this market will be one to watch closely as dispensaries begin selling recreational cannabis and the industry develops.

Vermont

The recent Canadian legalization of recreational cannabis will no doubt put pressure on states sharing a border with them to consider adjusting their laws.

Legalizing recreational cannabis will likely increase tourism to Vermont, the way other states saw an influx in tourism when they legalized. Unfortunately, Vermont has only decriminalized recreational cannabis. You can possess, grow and consume cannabis, but you can’t buy or sell it, which obviously restricts the ability of any business to enter the market.

Vermont Statehouse, Montpellier, VT
Image: Tony Fischer, Flickr

However, their legal medical program is relatively laissez-faire compared to other states in the region. They allow for cultivation at home or through a caregiver and there are a number of small businesses working under the legal medical program.

Maryland

Recreational cannabis isn’t legal in Maryland yet, but medical cannabis has been legal since 2014. It’s illegal for patients and caregivers to grow their own. Attempts have been made to make recreational cannabis in 2016, but the bill didn’t move forward.

Maryland’s industry was off to a rocky start, when the application process for businesses wanting to enter the market slowed to a crawl. This month, the state just approved four new medical dispensaries and one new processor for the market. The latest round of approvals brings the total to 69 dispensaries serving patients, while back in 2016, the state pre-approved 102 dispensaries originally.

Delaware Expect to see another attempt at legalizing via the legislature in early 2019.

Delaware is looking at the possibility of legalizing the recreational use of cannabis for adults over 21 years of age. Even though medical cannabis is legal, recreational use isn’t. Back in June, lawmakers in the state were close to recreational legalization but fell short of the mark by four votes. Expect to see another attempt at legalizing via the legislature in early 2019.

The Delaware Department of Health will continue to accept applications for medical cannabis cards, which is required for patients seeking to obtain their medicine from a compassion center. Patients are not allowed to grow their own cannabis. The state’s program has been operational for quite a while, and a small number of companies have established footprints in the state, like the Israeli brand Tikun Olam.

Pennsylvania

In 2016, Pennsylvania legalized medical cannabis. In contrast to some of the other states discussed earlier, PA is off to a more streamlined start. The second phase of their medical program allowed for more businesses to enter the market, a wider range of qualifying conditions and a larger number of patients registering. The industry is maturing here fast and could make for an exciting opportunity with recreational legalization potentially on the horizon.

A state lawmaker recently introduced legislation to legalize recreational cannabis. The bill would allow adults 21 and older to possess cannabis products such as edibles and up to six cannabis plants, but not more than three mature plants that are flowering.

The bill would call for the immediate release of people jailed for cannabis-related crimes. This would also allow anyone with a criminal history related to cannabis to have that expunged.

If the bill passes, the tax imposed is estimated to generate $500 million a year.

Richard Naiberg
Quality From Canada

Protecting Intellectual Property in Canada: A Practical Guide, Part 4

By Richard Naiberg
No Comments
Richard Naiberg

Editor’s Note: This is the third article in a series by Richard Naiberg where he discusses how cannabis businesses can protect their intellectual property in Canada. Part 1 introduced the topic and examined the use of trade secrets in business and Part 2 went into how business owners can protect new technologies and inventions through applying for patents. Part 3 raised the issue of plant breeders’ rights and in Part 4, below, Naiberg discusses trademarks and how cannabis businesses should go about protecting their brand identity in Canada.

Trademarks: Protections For Brands And Goodwill

Cannabis businesses must not only protect their investments in their technical creations, but also must protect their brand identities. A cannabis producer can invest heavily in making a desirable, high-quality product, and can advertise and sell this product so as to generate customer interest and goodwill, but if the customer cannot distinguish the producer’s product from that of its competitor, this investment is for not. Trademarks become unenforceable when they are no longer distinctive.

A trademark provides its owner with the right to have the Court stop another entity from using the trademark, or using a similar trademark in a way that confuses the public. When the trademark is infringed, the Court can also make a monetary award in favor of the trademark owner.

Trademarks are identifiers of a particular source of manufacture and they can take virtually any form. Trademarks can be words, phrases, symbols, names, designs, letters, numbers, colors, three-dimensional shapes, holograms, moving images, modes of packaging, sounds, scents, tastes, textures, or any other distinguishing element. What a trademark cannot be is a mere descriptor of the goods or services themselves because such a trademark would prevent other entities from describing their products in their ordinary terms.

Trademarks can be registered, but they do not have to be. In choosing a trademark, the cannabis producer must balance competing impulses: the desire to choose a trademark that is suggestive of the product itself so as to have an immediate meaning to customers without need of an expensive marketing campaign; and the desire to coin a unique and striking trademark which is instantly eye-catching and memorable, but which must be advertised before customers can understand the product to which it refers.

For example, a depiction of cannabis leaf or a word that plays on the ordinary terms used to refer to cannabis will not make a strong mark that can be enforced against those who adopt something similar. On the other hand, a coined word, such as “Kodak”, may have no independent association with cannabis but, after a time, use of this mark in association with a cannabis product can create a very strong mark with a wider ambit of exclusivity.

All that said, even a very suggestive mark can serve as a trademark where the use of the mark is so longstanding and ubiquitous that the suggestive mark acquires a secondary meaning as an indicator of its source of manufacture. Cannabis producers can and should also consider adopting specific colors, scents or tastes of their products as trademarks, where appropriate.

Trademarks become unenforceable when they are no longer distinctive. For this reason, trademark owners must keep abreast of any use of trademarks similar to their own by third parties, and must act quickly to either license such uses or to restrain them.Cannabis businesses have been very busy applicants for trademarks. More than 1700 such applications are now on file, though a comparative few have yet been registered. 

Trademarks can be registered, but they do not have to be. When a company’s product or service becomes known to its customers or potential customers with reference to a mark through ordinary business use, a trademark has been created.

Registration does however provide certain advantages. Under the amendments to the Trademarks Act coming in 2019, a registered trademark can be obtained for without any proof of use or goodwill.  By contrast, and as noted above, an unregistered mark must be used and possess goodwill before it can be said to exist at all. A registered trademark provides protection for its owner across Canada. An unregistered trademark can only be enforced in the geographical area in which its owner has established its reputation. A registered trademark is protected from those who use it in a manner that is likely to depreciate the goodwill of the trademark. An unregistered trademark only protects against consumer confusion.

Registration under the Trademarks Act also makes it an offence to sell goods or services on a commercial scale in association with another’s registered trademark, or to traffic in infringing labels. Further, a trademark owner can request that the import or export of such goods in Canada be arrested. No similar rights accrue for unregistered trademarks.

Finally, a registered trademark is published at the CIPO web site, providing notice of its existence to new market entrants before these entrants commit to using a similar trademark. Unregistered marks are not always easily discovered and a new market entrant may commit to a mark before having any opportunity to discover that it is the unregistered trademark of another.

Registering a trademark is straightforward. The applicant prepares an application that identifies the applicant, the trademark and the goods and/or services with which the trademark is being used or is intended to be used. Once satisfied that the application complies with the Trademarks Act, CIPO publishes the application to allow potential opponents of the registration to come forward. If there is no opposition, or if an opposition proceeding is brought and dismissed, the trademark is issued.

There is an interaction between the Trademarks Act and the Plant Breeder’s Rights Act. As discussed above, when a denomination has been adopted for a plant variety under the Plant Breeder’s Rights Act, nothing similar can be adopted or registered as a trademark. This is so other traders may use the denomination in their sale of the variety after expiry of the plant breeder’s right.

Cannabis businesses have been very busy applicants for trademarks. More than 1700 such applications are now on file, though a comparative few have yet been registered. Trademark applications in this area are likely to increase further with the coming changes to the Trademarks Act and the removal of the requirement that applicants show use of the trademark prior to registration. Companies will be encouraged to apply for trademarks they may only be considering using, and for any trademarks that they think their competitors may be planning to use. There is some concern that the changes to the Trademarks Act will lead to the rise of trademark trolls.

Before adopting a particular trademark, the producer must do what it can to minimize the likelihood that a third party will assert that the trademark infringes the third party’s prior rights. Searches of Canadian and international trademarks, particularly United States trademarks, are advised. National intellectual property offices, such as CIPO and the United States Patent and Trademark Office, maintain easily searchable databases of registered and applied-for trademarks that should be reviewed. Search professionals can also assist in identifying trademarks that have never been the subject of a trademark application. With the result of the searches in hand, the cannabis producer can determine whether or not to proceed to adopt the contemplated mark and invest in its promotion.

In Part 5, Naiberg will explain how to use a copyright to protect works of creative expression. Stay tuned for more!

Canopy_Growth_Corporation_logo

Focus on Canopy Growth: International Pioneer On A Global Mission

By Marguerite Arnold
2 Comments
Canopy_Growth_Corporation_logo

Read the glossy website or encounter their expensive marketing materials and lush swag at any upscale international cannabis business conference these days and you get a certain kind of impression. The new, modernist, chic European HQ in central Frankfurt, for example, with its floor-to-ceiling windows and breath-taking view of the city, river and mountains, continues to give that perspective far from home.The company has been at the forefront of the Canadian cannabis industry since 2013 and has subsequently weathered several mergers, buyouts and creative partnerships of all kinds.

But what’s of great interest about Canopy is that its highly slick corporate image is backed up by a solid performance elsewhere to date– and on a number of important, and globally impactful levels. Further, the company’s willingness to think strategically, globally, and take calculated, well-timed risks at the same time proves to be effective.

The Canadian Beginnings

The company has been at the forefront of the Canadian cannabis industry since 2013 and has subsequently weathered several mergers, buyouts and creative partnerships of all kinds. In the process it has also made financial history in the cannabis industry, becoming the first publicly listed cannabis company in the world a year after its founding.

Canopy_Growth_Corporation_logoSo much of its iconic corporate history is in fact, ironically fading in the rapid birth of the full on recreational market at home. However, here is the elevator pitch. Born as Tweed, in 2013, in an abandoned former Hershey chocolate plant and the recipient of one of Canada’s first medical cultivation licenses, the company rapidly expanded with increased market access that reform brought. Inevitably, its success also spawned one of its closest competitors (Cannabis Wheaton Income Corp) after co-founder Chuck Rifici was ousted by a unanimous vote of the Canopy board.

In 2018, Canopy Growth still maintains its reputation as the first Canadian cannabis unicorn, even though its stock price is just half that of close competitor, Tilray.

In Canada, the company has long expanded adroitly beyond its central HQ with strategic partnerships and buyouts that range the gamut of grow and branding opportunities that are becoming increasingly as mainstream as, well, beer. These days, Canopy is well-poised to take advantage of the shifting Canadian regulatory landscape on several fronts.

The first is undeniably medical. The company has made patient access a cornerstone of its continuing market development strategy. In fact, current CEO and original cofounder, Bruce Linton, has recently told the press that in his view the medical market globally is the company’s first and most profitable focus.

No matter how many beer companies come calling. And that is also one of the company’s more notable, if not newsworthy accomplishments.

International Aspirations

However it is on the international side that the company has really distinguished itself. That starts with the early (relatively speaking) and active interest in what was going on far from Canadian shores. Initially in Europe (but not limited to it). And even more centrally, how and where the company expanded its global medical reach.Canopy has spread its influence widely throughout Europe already

That started, from the Canopy perspective, with the decision to buy the small German GmbH called MedCann (now Spectrum Cannabis, the global medical brand of Canopy). Located just south of Frankfurt, an international but small team of globally experienced entrepreneurs managed to obtain the first import license for medical flower from Canada into Germany in the summer of 2016. Guided by the industry knowledge and business savvy if not entrepreneurial zeal that so often leads to naught, Pierre Debs and team faced a market still sceptical of medicinal cannabis domestically, and the burden of being “first.” Canopy was not yet in Europe, but they had more ready access to the market and capital. The Canopy buyout of MedCann was accomplished on December 12, 2016, six months before the first iteration of the German cultivation bid was announced. Canopy later announced that it had become one of the top ten finalists in the first iteration of the now restarted German cultivation bid.

Beyond Germany however, this unique team with deep local and global knowledge also began an immediate expansion policy in Europe and beyond that is still unfolding. Apparently in similar strategy adopted at home in the Canadian provinces, Canopy has spread its influence widely throughout Europe already. With an enormous supply contract from Spain’s Alcaliber and operations in Denmark, the Czech Republic, Poland, Italy and a few more (still currently unnamed) operations rolling out any day, the company is clearly building a solid, strategically dispersed infrastructure that reaches far beyond Europe, with global impact and influence.

Exhibit A? In April of this year, the company launched Spectrum Australia with support from the Victorian government.

Controversies

The biggest controversy facing the company so far, albeit indirectly, involves pesticides. This issue occurred during the acquisition of an outside company called Mettrum. In other words, Canopy inherited the production liabilities of a purchased company. The acquisition, however, which passed the buck to Canopy to fix, was actually an opportunity for Canopy to implement its own high internal production and quality controls throughout Mettrum facilities.

This was not inexpensive or of small impact (it affected 21,000 medical users). In addition to taking a leadership role in addressing their acquisition’s production issues, CEO Linton publicly apologized to affected patients.

The company has also been on the forefront of the banking and financing regulatory problems that have plagued the industry (so far successfully).

Richard Naiberg
Quality From Canada

Protecting Intellectual Property in Canada: A Practical Guide, Part 3

By Richard Naiberg
No Comments
Richard Naiberg

Editor’s Note: This is the third article in a series by Richard Naiberg where he discusses how cannabis businesses can protect their intellectual property in Canada. Part 1 introduced the topic and examined the use of trade secrets in business and Part 2 went into how business owners can protect new technologies and inventions through applying for patents. Part 3, below, delves into plant breeders’ rights and how breeders in Canada could protect new plant varieties.

Plant Breeders’ Rights: Protection For New Plant Varieties

Unlike the Patent Act, Canada’s Plant Breeders’ Rights Act does provide intellectual property protection for whole plants. Plant breeder’s rights are available for new cannabis plants, whether they are the product of genetic engineering or more traditional cross breeding.

The applicant must also propose a name (referred to as a “denomination”) for the new variety that is acceptable to the Commissioner.The Plant Breeders’ Rights Act focuses on the material used to propagate a new variety of plant, such as its seeds. The owner of a plant breeder’s right can stop others from selling, producing or reproducing the propagating material, conditioning the propagating material for use, exporting or importing the propagating material, repeatedly using the protected variety to commercially produce another variety, and stocking the propagating material for the purpose of doing any of the above acts. The owner can also assert these same rights to stop another’s activities as they relate to another plant variety that is essentially derived from the protected variety. The owner can also recover for the damages it suffers as a result of any infringement. For cannabis plants, the term of a plant breeder’s rights endures for 20 years from the date of its issuance.

To register a plant-breeder’s right, a breeder provides an application to the Commissioner of Plant Breeders’ Rights Office, which is part of Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

To be registrable, the plant variety must be new, meaning that the propagating material has not been sold in Canada more than 1 year prior to the application (or elsewhere more than 4 years prior to the application); it must be distinguishable from all varieties that are known to exist at date of filing of the application; it must be sufficiently homogeneous, meaning that its relevant characteristics are predictable and commercially acceptable; and it must be stable in its essential characteristics over successive generations. Registration under the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act provides plant breeders’ rights in Canada only. However, Canada is a signatory to a treaty (UPOV) that allows an application originally filed in Canada to provide priority for registration in other member countries, and vice versa.The Commissioner also has the power to require the performance of tests on a sample of the propagating material, such as to verify its stated characteristics.

The applicant must also propose a name (referred to as a “denomination”) for the new variety that is acceptable to the Commissioner. The Plant Breeder’s Rights Act puts limits on what may be chosen as the denomination. Among other things, the denomination cannot refer to characteristics the variety does not have, suggest that it is derived from another variety or bred by a particular breeder when this is not case, or comprise laudatory descriptives that could cause confusion. The denomination cannot be used or registered as a trademark and, once accepted by the Commissioner, must be used by all traders when selling the propagating material, even after the expiry of the plant breeder’s right. Indeed, the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act makes it an offence to misuse or misapply the name. The same denomination will be used for the same variety in all UPOV countries.

The application process can involve some back-and-forth with the Commissioner, as well as the opportunity for others to oppose the registration. The Commissioner also has the power to require the performance of tests on a sample of the propagating material, such as to verify its stated characteristics.

A unique feature of a plant breeder’s right is that it can be enforced even before the Commissioner finishes his or her review against infringers who are given notice of the applicant’s application.

As of this writing, there are three registered denominations of cannabis plants under the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act. Chris Griffin has registered “Big C” – cannabis sativa subsp. indica; and MedReleaf Corp. has registered MR2017001 and MR2017002, both being varieties of cannabis sativa. It is expected that further registrations will follow.

There are some important limitations to the plant breeder’s rights. Farmers who harvest the plant variety on their “holdings” are given a privilege: they can store, produce and reproduce (but cannot sell) the variety on such holdings. The Commissioner also has the power to issue compulsory licenses when a protected variety is not available to the public at reasonable rates. Further, the plant breeder’s right is not infringed when the protected variety is used for non-commercial or experimental purpose.

In Part 4 of the series, Naiberg will discuss trademarks and how cannabis businesses should go about protecting their brand identity in Canada. Stay tuned for more!