Tag Archives: hemp

U.S. Hemp Authority Names FoodChain ID Official Certification Body

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments

According to a press release published last week, the U.S. Hemp Authority (USHA) announced that FoodChain ID, a global leader in food safety, testing and sustainability, is now the exclusive certifying body for the USHA certification seal.

FoodChain ID’s claim to fame is their widely-recognized Non-GMO Project Verification labeling standard, but they also offer services in the food, beverage and ingredient industries, including the entire food supply chain, as well as being a leader in USDA Organic certifications.

The effort to provide quality standards and guidance for best practices in the hemp and CBD markets is led by a coalition of organizations with the same goal: to legitimize the industry and gain consumer trust. The effort is funded by the U.S. Hemp Roundtable and joined by the Hemp Industries Association, the U.S. Hemp Authority, testing laboratories, agronomists, quality assessors and other industry-leading firms.

In order for a hemp company to get the certified seal, they must prove that they can meet strict standards, pass an independent third-party audit as well as enter a licensing agreement. The certification seal is an attempt to provide some legitimacy to the ever-changing hemp and CBD markets in the United States.

Marielle Weintraub, president of the U.S. Hemp Authority, says that through the program’s independent, third-party lab testing, the certification seal provides consumers with truth in labeling and transparency. “The U.S. Hemp Authority Certification Program is our industry’s initiative to provide high standards, best practices, and self-regulation, giving consumers an easy way to identify hemp-derived products that can be trusted,” says Weintraub. “We are striving for ingredient transparency and truth in labeling.”

Just some of the many CBD products on the market today.

According to Weintraub, the standards and best practices for the program are routinely updated and improved. There will be a public session where they discuss those standards and update industry stakeholders on their progress at the Natural Products Expo West on March 2nd.

Mark Dabroski, senior vice president, commercial services at FoodChain ID, says that hemp products are becoming increasingly common in the food, beverage and health and wellness markets. “Hemp seed oil and protein markets have been increasing exponentially over the last decade,” says Dabroski. “With the category’s expected growth at a 46% CAGR to reach $2.8B by 2023, the need for self-regulation and transparency are critical.”

“As consumers increasingly demand to know what is in the foods and products they buy, our suite of testing and verification services helps meet this demand,” says Dabroski.

USDA Announces Risk Management Programs for Hemp

By Aaron G. Biros
2 Comments

According to a press release published earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced two new programs available for hemp growers to mitigate their risk.

The first is called Multi-Peril Crop Insurance (MPCI), which is a pilot hemp insurance program designed to cover against “loss of yield because of insurable causes of loss for hemp grown for fiber, grain or Cannabidiol (CBD) oil.” The second plan is Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program, which protects against losses from lower-than-normal yields, destroyed crops or “prevented planting” where permanent crop insurance is not available.

Both of the programs are now accepting applications and the deadline to apply is March 16, 2020. “We are pleased to offer these coverages to hemp producers. Hemp offers new economic opportunities for our farmers, and they are anxious for a way to protect their product in the event of a natural disaster,” says Bill Northey, Farm Production and Conservation Undersecretary.

The MCPI program is available for hemp producers in 21 states, according to the press release. Th program is available in certain counties in Alabama, California, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin.

There are a handful of requirements to be eligible for that program, such as having one year of growing under their belt and have contracts in place for the sale of their crops. Hemp growers producing CBD must have at least 5 acres and hemp growers producing fiber must have at least 20 acres cultivated.

In 2021, the press release states, “hemp will be insurable under the Nursery crop insurance program and the Nursery Value Select pilot crop insurance program.” With those programs, hemp crops can be insured if grown in containers and in accordance with federal law.

To apply for any of these programs, hemp growers must have a license and must be totally compliant with state, tribal or federal regulations, or be operating under a state or university research plot from the 2014 Farm Bill. Growers need to report their hemp acreage to the Farm Service Agency, a division of the USDA.

The press release also mentions that if the crops have above 0.3% THC, the crop becomes uninsurable and ineligible for any of the programs.

Is 2020 the Year of New CBD Markets?

By Marguerite Arnold
No Comments

If you were at Davos this year, you heard alot about CBD. The cannabinoid will again be a headliner in business analysis and bottom line reports this year. But as the market matures, globally, what is the real temperature of the industry? And how fast will regional hiccups resolve?

Regulatory Issues Are In The Room

From the US state markets to the EU, hemp is coming into its own, even though almost everyone also refers to it as CBD (cannabidiol).

european union statesIn the United States, things are even more murky because of a lack of federal reform and the individual rules and regs of existing state markets. To an extent, the market is being “federalized” on the testing front (see ISO for example) and GMP (at the federal pharmaceutical level), producers are beginning to be able to get certified on a global scale. However, the vast majority of the U.S. market is not anywhere close to the regulatory muster now required of even the most-humble commercial hemp farmer anywhere in the EU.

In Europe, the entire cannabis discussion is already far more defined, and as a result, very much likely to set the rulebook globally, especially as so many people want to import here. And this is going to be a bugbear for the next two years. The rules on EU Bio for starters, are still in flux. And where this ties into GMP downstream, those who brave such waters are in for choppy seas for the time being.

Tie this into Novel Food, and this is an area right now that should only be charted by the most experienced navigators, and not just using the stars.

The Battle Is On – Both On The High Seas And The High Streets

For all the desire to bring “whole plant” into the room, (in other words recreational cannabis and medical cannabis with the THC still attached), CBD fever at least has spread in Europe faster than any pending flu epidemic from China.

There are positives and negatives that come with this discussion. Namely, the ever pounding need to commercialize the legal industry and remove all Drug War stigma and barriers from the discussion.

CBD-only legalization is also a powerful answer to those who claim that if CBD is legit, then the police will not chance busting people, no matter how much THC is or is not in the offending substance in question.

These are also the same people frequently who also have a stake in some level of the industry as it legalizes. And this is also where some of the fiercest battles for regulatory control and definition have also begun to happen.

The structure of cannabidiol (CBD), one of 400 active compounds found in cannabis.

Where they have come to a head (see Italy), it appears that governments are indeed reconsidering the whole “insurance” if not “home grow” discussion. Not to mention, as a result, recreational after that. The conversation in Italy, of all places, right now, is a good indication of this trend. It is a conservative country in every way, yet it is the first to not only cancel a government controlled monopoly license, but also the largest country in Europe to again tinker with limited home grow of cannabis plants.

Ironically this is also the place where the most dedicated “CBD revolutionaries” have also hit. In places like the UK right now, the lack of appetite for EU regulatory control generally (see Brexit) has resonated, particularly with a pro cannabis crowd sick and tired of more delay on a topic whose day in the sun has finally come. If not more government wobbles on discussion on the medical side (see the recent NHS decision to ignore cannabinoids and chronic pain).

In other places like Europe however, and this certainly showed up at Davos, CBD is a hardy foot soldier if not cannaguerilla from the hills that is beginning to chalk up discussions if not yet wide-ranging sovereign victories.

This is absolutely clear to see in places like the African market (and Lesotho is about to become a hot ticket globally if not within the African continent). Indeed, the first seeds were sown several years ago).

Yes, it is ridiculous that CBD is being banned. And it is also obvious that governments are unwilling to be bankrupted over medical cannabis of any kind or THC concentration, and know they must also seek other ways to deal with the issue.

CBD, in other words, is a kind of Che Guevara that is going to take down a few of the established orders in this revolution that is now global. And for that very reason, taking on a character if not place at the table all of its own.

Cannabis Featured at World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland

By Marguerite Arnold
1 Comment

So, cannabis was at Davos, like a lot of Very Important People who paid to be seen. What does that mean, however, for 2020 if not beyond, particularly in Europe?

In general, the industry is setting itself up for the next round of “invasion” just about everywhere. In Europe this is going to be a very interesting next couple of years as cannabis as a crop is integrated into the mainstream via changing rules both on a national and regional level.

There are two possibilities for the now Brexited UK. Either the UK is also going to be an insane madhouse of cannabis innovation, set free from its EU “overlords” or the entire discussion is going to get bogged down in another kind of elite private room. Namely which British company gets mostly monopoly rights on what is left of NHS patients (see GW Pharmaceuticals), and which foreign (probably US or Canadian) company is going to be able to buy market accessone way or another to both the medical market that flows over from this discussion and the budding recreational one. See CBD for starters.

In the meantime, strange hybrids are going to enter markets. British distilled hemp infused rum showed up in German mainstream grocery stores just before Christmas. Chocolate makers are setting out stakes across European states with suppliers attached globally.

In Italy, home grow has entered the discussion again, and recreational count down calendars are also on the walls if not sales projections of everyone in the industry. That said, the strategies and ground covered between now and the beginning of 2022, must be strategically chosen. There is no easy, much less “one” path in. All things cosmetics and tinctures will be difficult paths for years to come – although lucrative markets.

CBD vs THC

This discussion is in the room as a political topic as well as an economic one. Technically, anyone with a working farm and used to producing standards demanded across the EU, should be able to enter the industry at this point. That said, getting in, and getting established is not only expensive but also time consuming. The many quirks and stigmas of the past are still in the room. And as fast as norms are establishing, the rules are changed again.

As much as anyone wants to set out even a stake (medical vs. recreational, THC Vs. CBD), the rules, if not debate is bunted again – certainly this has been the case in Europe over the past few years. In fact, the entire plant must be and always is in the room, even if in discussion with several agencies at a time.

2020, in other words, is going to be an interesting year for the industry, even if the most significant achievements, companies and people are not “seen” much less lauded in any spotlight.There is no way THC can be entirely left out of the discussion to begin with. Starting with alarmed reports about the fact that traces of THC in CBD products can show up in human bloodstreams. Until there is a real understanding about the tolerance levels of THC, and for whom in other words, the CBD market will always be haunted by this bugbear. And when they do, recreational reform of all kinds will also be much easier to support.

That said, you cannot pay overhead with promises about future reform. And in the short term, it is necessary to find your niche, and stick to it.

Europe also is a far more interesting regulatory market. Namely, there are more trials afoot, and more people are exposed to the idea of cannabinoids and how to use them.

How long will this take to resolve? It’s anyone’s guess, but the likelihood is that the next two years are set to be just as interesting as the last several have been, although the ground, as well as the goalposts are also just as clearly changing.

2020 in other words, is going to be an interesting year for the industry, even if the most significant achievements, companies and people are not “seen” much less lauded in any spotlight. Namely a general, mainstream and global population is now being introduced to a wonder if not miracle plant, and in a variety of ways.

That is surely, just in and of itself, perhaps the most important aspect of celebrating at a Swiss resort and playground of elites. Cannabis has “arrived” and taken its sophomore spin at the ball.

Biros' Blog

Ground Control to Major Tom: Sending Hemp to Space

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments

In March of this year, SpaceX CRS-20 cargo flight will carry tissue culture samples of hemp and coffee to the International Space Station (ISS). Floating in a most peculiar way, the stars look very different, that is, the day those hemp samples enter orbit.

Hemp tissue culture samples like these will sit in an incubator aboard the ISS come March

Front Range Biosciences (FRB) is partnering with Space Cells and the University of Colorado, Boulder, on an experiment to “examine zero gravity’s effects on the plants’ metabolic pathways,” according to a press release. FRB will provide the plant cultures, while Space Cells provides funding and intelligence, using the dedicated space aboard the ISS for Boulder’s program. The university will also train NASA astronauts how to transfer cells to an incubator and conduct the experiment.

More than 480 plant cell cultures are going to be placed in an incubator designed for space, which will regulate temperature among other variables for about 30 days aboard the ISS. There will be a “PlantCam” where folks at Boulder can monitor the cells from their command center. After those 30 days are over, the plants will return to earth where FRB researchers will inspect the samples and “evaluate their DNA to determine if microgravity and space radiation exposure altered their gene expression.”

Dr. Jon Vaught headshot
Dr. Jon Vaught, CEO of Front Range Biosciences

According to Dr. Jonathan Vaught, co-founder and CEO of Front Range Biosciences, the research results could help scientists identify new varieties or chemical expressions in the plant that were previously misunderstood. “This is the first time anyone is researching the effects of microgravity and spaceflight on hemp and coffee cell cultures,” says Dr. Vaught. “There is science to support the theory that plants in space experience mutations. This is an opportunity to see whether those mutations hold up once brought back to earth and if there are new commercial applications.”

Peter McCullagh, founder and managing partner of Space Cells, says the commercial applications for this experiment have a lot of potential. Learning how crops can thrive in a harsh environment could give researchers important information on how to deal with the effects of climate change on agriculture around the world. “We’ve been fortunate to be a leader in the new space industry and we’re excited to explore this new frontier with the team at Front Range Biosciences and University of Colorado, Boulder,” says McCullagh. “These are big ideas we’re pursuing and there’s a massive opportunity to bring to market new chemotypes, as well as plants that can better adapt to drought and cold conditions.”

This won’t be the only experiment either – the partnership wants to conduct a number of experiments that will study how to boost productivity and viability for crops in space. “We envision this to be the first of many experiments together,” says Louis Stodieck, director of BioServe Space Technologies at the University of Colorado, Boulder. “In the future, we plan for the crew to harvest and preserve the plants at different points in their grow-cycle so we can analyze which metabolic pathways are turned on and turned off. This is a fascinating area of study that has considerable potential.”

Hemp tissue cultures floating in a tin can, far above the world and all in the name of science and to determine if microgravity and space radiation exposure can alter gene expressions. No we’ve really made the grade.

Cannabis Industry Journal

Cannabis Labs Conference Announced for Spring 2020

By Cannabis Industry Journal Staff
No Comments
Cannabis Industry Journal

EDGARTOWN, MA, Jan. 23, 2020 – Innovative Publishing Co., the publisher of Cannabis Industry Journal and organizer of the Cannabis Quality Conference & Expo is announcing the launch of the Cannabis Labs Conference. The event will address science, technology, regulatory compliance and quality management as they relate to the cannabis testing market. It will take place on June 2–3 at U.S. Pharmacopeia in Rockville, MD.

A few of the noteworthy topics that will be discussed at the conference include hemp testing under new federal guidelines, ISO 17025:2017 accreditation, potency and cannabinoid quantification, regulatory compliance and state regulations, microbiology and sample preparation best practices, among other topic areas.

The event is co-located with the Food Labs Conference, which will focus on regulatory, compliance and risk management issues that companies face in the area of testing and food laboratory management. More information about this event is available on Food Safety Tech. Some of the critical topics include a discussion of FDA’s proposed FSMA rule, Laboratory Accreditation Program for Food Testing; considerations in laboratory design; pathogen testing and detection; food fraud; advances in testing and lab technology; allergen testing, control and management; validation and proficiency testing; and much more.

“By presenting two industry conferences under one roof, we can provide attendees with technology, regulatory compliance and best practices that cannabis and food might share but also focused topics that are unique to cannabis or food laboratory industry needs,” said Rick Biros, president of Innovative Publishing Co., Inc. and director of the Food Labs Conference.

The call for abstracts is open until February 28.

The agenda and speakers will be announced in early March. Click here to learn more.

The Ultimate Guide to Intellectual Property Protection for Cannabis Businesses

By Roger Bora
2 Comments

As of this writing, one cannot register trademarks with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for cannabis products and services that “touch” the cannabis plant (i.e., cultivate, manufacture or dispense cannabis products), with the recent exception for certain hemp-based products and services, because use of trademarks must be lawful under federal law for federal trademark registration eligibility. Brand owners may, however, secure federal trademark registration protection for their brand names for certain cannabis-related products and services that are currently legal under federal law in advance of what could be the full legalization of cannabis at the state and federal levels.

Federal trademark registration provides brand owners with valuable benefits beyond common law (unregistered) and state registered trademark rights, including the preservation of national expansion rights and presumption of trademark ownership and validity. For those reasons, securing federal trademark registration protection for trademarks is a prudent business strategy.

This article summarizes certain laws and regulations for securing federal trademark registration protection for cannabis products (including cannabidiol (CBD) products) and services. It also identifies other forms of intellectual property protection for  cannabis businesses.

What Are Cannabis, Marijuana, Hemp and CBD?

  • Cannabis is a plant of the Cannabaceae family and contains many biologically active chemical compounds, including the well-known delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) compounds.
  • Parts of the Cannabis sativa plant are controlled under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) under the drug class “marijuana.” The CSA is a federal law that regulates drug policy for the manufacture, importation, possession, use and distribution of certain substances. Marijuana is currently listed as an illegal Schedule I drug under the CSA, along with cocaine and heroin, due to its high potential for abuse, which is attributable mainly to the psychoactive effects of THC and the absence of a currently accepted medical use in the United States.
  • Marijuana, a term the CSA uses, is the dried leaves of the cannabis plant. It is derived from the cannabis sativa and cannabis indica species and is used primarily as a psychoactive drug.
  • Hemp is derived only from the cannabis sativa species and has historically been grown primarily for its strong fibers used for industrial purposes, including for making fabrics, clothing and rope.
  • There is a significant difference between marijuana and hemp with respect to their concentration of THC, which gives the plant its psychoactive effect. While marijuana can reach THC levels of 30%, THC levels in hemp are typically 0.3% or less.
  • The low level of THC in hemp is a reason why federal authorities recently removed it from the legal definition of marijuana, which means that cannabis plants and derivatives such as CBD derived from hemp that contain 0.3% or less of THC on a dry-weight basis are no longer considered controlled substances under the CSA.
  • Cannabidiol (CBD) is an active ingredient in the cannabis plant and is derived primarily from the hemp plant. CBD has been touted for its many health benefits, including for the treatment of insomnia, pain and anxiety, and it has become a widely used ingredient in many types of products, including foods, cosmetics, building materials, industrial oils, plastics and textiles.

Relevant Laws and Regulations

Controlled Substances Act (CSA)

Under the CSA, the drug class marijuana is defined as “all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin” (subject to certain exceptions). 21 U.S.C. §802(16).

The CSA prohibits, among other things, manufacturing, distributing, dispensing or possessing cannabis that meets the definition of marijuana, including CBD derived from marijuana.

2018 Farm Bill Removes Hemp from the Definition of Marijuana

The 2018 Farm Bill signed into law on December 20, 2018, amended the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 and changed certain federal laws and regulations concerning the production and marketing of “hemp,” defined as “the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including the seeds thereof and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol [THC] concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.”

  • Those changes included removing hemp from the CSA’s definition of marijuana, which means that hemp and its derivatives, such as CBD derived from hemp, that contain no more than 0.3% THC on a dry-weight basis, are no longer controlled substances under the CSA.
  • The recent change in the classification of hemp allows brand owners that legally manufacture and sell certain hemp-based products, including certain hemp-derived CBD products, to federally register their associated trademarks.
  • However, the 2018 Farm Bill explicitly preserved FDA’s authority to regulate certain products containing cannabis or cannabis-derived compounds, even if derived from hemp, including CBD derived from hemp. Thus, federal laws, including FDA regulations, must still be considered for product legality before introducing products into commerce.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

Even with the removal of hemp from the CSA’s definition of marijuana, not all hemp-derived products are lawful following passage of the 2018 Farm Bill because certain products may still violate the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. For example, certain hemp-derived CBD products, including human foods, beverages, dietary supplements and animal foods, still violate FDA laws absent FDA approval.

The FDA monitors and investigates the sale of products that violate FDA laws, including CBD products promoted for therapeutic uses and treating diseases. When the FDA detects such violations, it may send warning letters to the violating parties as a first step in the enforcement process.

On December 20, 2018, the then FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D. made the following statement on that point:

“We’ll take enforcement action needed to protect public health against companies illegally selling cannabis and cannabis-derived products that can put consumers at risk and are being marketed in violation of the FDA’s authorities. The FDA has sent warning letters in the past to companies illegally selling CBD products that claimed to prevent, diagnose, treat, or cure serious diseases, such as cancer. Some of these products were in further violation of the FD&C Act because they were marketed as dietary supplements or because they involved the addition of CBD to food.”

Furthermore, in a recent letter to a company selling CBD products, the FTC sent a joint letter with the FDA, and that letter included the following statements and warnings:

  • “The FTC strongly urges you to review all claims for your products and ensure that those claims are supported by competent and reliable scientific evidence.  Violations of the FTC Act may result in legal action seeking a Federal District Court injunction or Administrative Cease and Desist Order.  An order also may require that you pay back money to consumers.

  • You should take prompt action to correct the violations cited in this letter. Failure to promptly correct violations may result in legal action without further notice, including, without limitation, seizure and/or injunction.”

What about using hulled hemp seed, hemp seed protein powder and hemp seed oil in human food?

  • In December 2018, the FDA generally recognized as safe (GRAS) hulled hemp seed, hemp seed protein powder and hemp seed oil. Accordingly, the FDA’s current position suggests that those products may legally be marketed in human foods for the uses described in the notices, provided they comply with all other requirements. To date, the FDA has not received any GRAS notices for the use of hemp-derived ingredients in animal food.
  • Hemp seeds are the seeds of the Cannabis sativa plant. They do not naturally contain THC or CBD. The hemp seed-derived ingredients that are the subjects of the GRAS notices contain only trace amounts of CBD and THC. The FDA has reported that “[c]onsumption of these hemp seed-derived ingredients is not capable of making consumers ‘high.’”
  • Those GRAS conclusions do not affect the FDA’s position on the addition of CBD and THC to food.

U.S. Trademark Registration Eligibility

Trademarks Must Be Used for Lawful Activities

A trademark’s use must be lawful under federal law for federal trademark registration eligibility. Whether activities associated with cannabis and/or cannabis-related goods or services are lawful under federal law requires review of various federal laws, including the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Federal law controls federal trademark registration eligibility, period.

If a trademark application is filed for goods or services that violate federal laws, including for marijuana products and/or services or certain products that feature CBD, such as foods and nutritional supplements, the USPTO Examiner should refuse the application. Furthermore, filing an “intent-to-use” trademark application cannot obviate that refusal.

What does that mean? It means that filing a trademark application based on an “intent to use” the trademark “in the future” in anticipation of federal law legalizing cannabis still violates current law (the law as of the application filing date), and thus the application should be rejected because the applicant does not and cannot have a “bona fide intent” to use the applied-for mark for a legal purpose.

The USPTO Examination Guide 1-19 for examining cannabis marks states that:

“[r]egistration of marks for foods, beverages, dietary supplements, or pet treats containing CBD will still be refused as unlawful under the FDCA, even if derived from hemp, as such goods may not be introduced lawfully into interstate commerce.”

The following is an excerpt from an issued Trademark Office action refusing registration of a mark on the basis the listed cannabis goods are unlawful:

“Registration is refused because applicant does not have a bona fide intent to lawfully use the applied-for mark in commerce.

To qualify for federal trademark/service mark registration, the use of a mark in commerce must be lawful. Gray v. Daffy Dan’s Bargaintown, 823 F.2d 522, 526, 3 USPQ2d 1306, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (stating that “[a] valid application cannot be filed at all for registration of a mark without ‘lawful use in commerce’”); TMEP §907; see In re Stellar Int’l, Inc., 159 USPQ 48, 50-51 (TTAB 1968); Coahoma Chemical Co., Inc. v. Smith, 113 USPQ 413 (Com’r Pat. & Trademarks 1957) (concluding that “use of a mark in connection with unlawful shipments in interstate commerce is not use of a mark in commerce which the [Office] may recognize.”). Thus, the goods and/or services to which the mark is applied must comply with all applicable federal laws. See In re Brown, 119 USPQ2d 1350, 1351 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re Midwest Tennis & Track Co., 29 USPQ2d 1386, 1386 n.2 (TTAB 1993) (noting that “[i]t is settled that the Trademark Act’s requirement of ‘use in commerce,’ means a ‘lawful use in commerce’”)); In re Pepcom Indus., Inc., 192 USPQ 400, 401 (TTAB 1976); TMEP §907.

Here, the items or activities to which the proposed mark will be applied are unlawful under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. §§801-971.”

USPTO Guidelines for Marijuana and Hemp Products: Key Takeaways

  • Trademark registrations for marijuana and marijuana by-products, including CBD derived from marijuana, are still unavailable.
  • Trademark registrations for certain hemp products are available. If an applicant’s goods are derived from hemp, as defined in the 2018 Farm Bill, the identification of goods must specify that they are derived from hemp and that the products contain less than 0.3% THC. Thus, the scope of the resulting registration will be limited to goods compliant with federal law.
  • Trademark applications covering certain CBD infused products, including foods, beverages, dietary supplements and pet foods, are still refused, even if derived from hemp, because such goods may not be introduced lawfully into commerce without FDA approval.
  • The USPTO is currently approving trademarks for skin care preparations and cosmetics that feature hemp ingredients, including CBD derived from hemp, as long as the application complies with the 2018 Farm Bill and USPTO filing requirements.
  • If a pending application’s filing date is prior to December 20, 2018 (the effective date of the 2018 Farm Bill), the applicant must amend the filing date to a date later than December 20, 2018 before the application may proceed. Once the date has been amended, a new search is conducted for any prior pending confusingly similar marks.
  • Trademark applications for hemp cultivation and production, if allowed, will require proof of authorization and licensure in accordance with a plan approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Federal Trademark Registration Considerations and Options

Although marijuana products and services (i.e., products and services that “touch the plant”) and certain hemp-based products are currently illegal under federal law, making their associated marks ineligible for federal trademark registration protection, there are still certain cannabis-related activities that are legal and thus eligible for federal trademark registration.

Examples of legal activities include:

  • Providing informational services related to cannabis or marijuana-related goods and services.
  • Clothing, including t-shirts and hats, featuring a cannabis-related trademark.
  • Educational programs in the fields of cannabis and CBD, including for health benefits and therapeutic uses of medical cannabis and CBD.
  • Providing an internet news portal featuring links to current events, information, commentary, non-downloadable publications in the nature of brochures, articles, and non-downloadable multimedia files containing video, audio or text in the fields of cannabis or cannabis news.
  • Online journals, namely blogs featuring information about cannabis.
  • Entertainment services, namely, providing podcasts featuring medical and industry experts in the field of cannabis and medical marijuana.

If a brand owner secures federal trademark registration protection for marks for legal activities, including those listed above, those trademark registrations and rights may arguably preserve future product and service expansion under the same registered mark for “related” goods and/or services that are unlawful as of the trademark application filing date, but later become lawful, including CBD infused foods and nutritional supplements and marijuana itself.

Why? Because trademark law protects consumers from “source confusion.”

  • For example, if a brand owner adopts the trademark N-DuraRun for running shoes, another party may not adopt the same or confusingly similar mark for running pants because consumers would likely be confused as to the source of running shoes and running pants if offered under the same trademark by different parties.
    • It is not confusion as to what a consumer is buying (“I thought I was buying running shoes… instead I mistakenly purchased running pants…”). Rather, it is confusion as to the source of the products (“I purchased EnDuraRun brand running pants because I thought they were made by the same company that makes N-DuraRun brand running shoes!”).
    • A question to ask is “Would the average consumer reasonably believe that the parties’ respective goods are of the type that would originate from the same source?”
      • If the answer is “yes” and if the parties’ respective marks are confusingly similar, there may be a likelihood of consumer confusion as to the source of the parties’ respective goods.

For example, if a company provides informational services in the field of cannabis and cannabis derivatives, including CBD infused foods, and/or provides foods and nutritional supplements featuring hemp seed protein powder and hemp seed oil, and it secures federal trademark registration protection for its trademark for those goods and/or services, that existing federal trademark registration and rights may arguably preserve the brand owner’s right to use and register the same mark for “related” goods and services, which could include CBD-infused foods and nutritional supplements if/when those goods become legal. That is so because the average consumer would arguably believe that informational services about CBD infused foods and CBD infused foods themselves would originate from the same source and also believe that foods and nutritional supplements featuring hemp seed protein powder and hemp seed oil and foods and nutritional supplements featuring hemp-derived CBD would originate from the same source.

Source confusion is the crux of trademark law.

Therefore, securing federal trademark registration protection now for goods and services that are lawful can preserve future trademark rights for cannabis-related products and services that are currently unlawful and may avoid losing valuable trademark rights to third parties.

As companies prepare for the potential federal legalization of all forms of cannabis, securing federal trademark registration now for brand names for goods and services that are currently legal is vital for protecting valuable company assets, current and future business opportunities, and future growth, and it is possible as long as brand owners understand the current status of the regulatory landscape and the intricacies of trademark law.

Other Forms of Intellectual Property Protection

In addition to trademark and federal trademark registration protection, there are other intellectual property protections available for marijuana, hemp and cannabis businesses, including:

  • State trademark filings. In states that have legalized cannabis, state trademark registrations may be available.
  • Common law trademark rights. In states that have legalized cannabis, common law trademark rights may be available.
  • Patent protection. Patent protection may be secured for various inventions, including plants, such as new strains of the cannabis plant, and methods of cannabis hydration and lighting.
  • Trade secrets. Trade secrets can protect certain aspects of a business, including formulas, processes or methods, that are not generally known or reasonably ascertainable by others and that can help a business obtain an economic advantage over competitors or customers. To be eligible as trade secrets, however, a business owner must take the necessary steps to legally protect them or they will be lost.
  • Copyrights. Copyright protection may be secured for certain company creative works, including trademark logos (artwork), written materials, photographs and software.

As the laws governing the cannabis industry continue to evolve, including trademark, FDA and banking laws and regulations, all interested parties, including cannabis business owners, law firms and investors, must stay abreast of the rapidly changing legal landscape to maximize business growth opportunities, ensure proper legal and regulatory compliance, and avoid having their businesses go up in smoke.


Notice: This article is for educational purposes only, is not legal advice and should not be substituted for retaining an attorney.

Cannabis Economics & Creating Efficiencies for Profit Margin

By Laura Breit
No Comments

News of cannabis glut and falling wholesale prices has been dominating the airwaves of late, despite some recent reports showing that prices are remaining steady. As legalization continues to spread across the nation, the industry is poised to become commoditized, especially in those areas where it has been legal for a longer period of time. Whether specializing in retail cannabis products or industrial hemp, companies in the cannabis industry should be taking note of the sweeping economic implications of a maturing marketplace.

As is true in any industry, rapid growth and significant investments are sometimes followed by a slowdown (think dot-com, but less extreme). There are measures that companies can take in order to avoid negative outcomes, and a step in the right direction includes focusing on the bottom line and planning for future growth. Company leaders need to educate themselves on the competitive landscape and take the long view toward solutions for their operations.

Sounds easy enough, but how do we actually do this? One key step is to pay attention to overall expenses and create efficiencies wherever possible in order to remain competitive. This means that during the facility and systems design phase, all outcomes need to be taken into account. One of the most important – and cost conscious – things to consider is energy usage. Energy Star, the EPA-backed program for energy efficiency, says that facilities can “reduce their energy use by up to 30 percent through low or no-cost measures.” Generally, this means that efficiencies are built-in to the design with energy cost savings and sustainability in mind.

One of the largest energy outputs for a cannabis operation includes the facility’s HVAC and electrical systems. We have found that when clients step back to consider a range of alternatives, they have a more comprehensive base for this important decision. Considering outside factors, such as growth projections and specific goals, cannabis companies can make a more educated decision on the system that will provide the best economic outcome for their business. Often, those that plan ahead and look past the initial system cost, find longer term savings and lower energy usage over time.

A plant in flowering under an LED fixture

As an example, we had a client looking to build an indoor cannabis cultivation operation. They had originally chosen to build their facility with high pressure sodium lighting to save money up front. Because this method of lighting typically has a lower first cost, it appeals to many companies that are starting out and wary of their budget. However, this particular client was poised for growth and looking to make sustainable choices that would impact their bottom line and meet their goals for environmentally sound business practices. We were able to create a model for them to illustrate the long-term benefits of installing LED lighting. This type of lighting allows growers to keep room temperatures higher, without compromising plant health with issues like tip burn. In addition, LED lights are more efficient and reduce the cooling load. This means mechanical systems were able to be downsized reducing first costs, and these systems also consumed less energy, reducing operational costs. Despite a higher first cost of the LED lights, the company ended up saving enough money in the reduced mechanical equipment size, as well as in the reduction of energy use from the lights and the mechanical equipment. The first costs between an HPS system and an LED system were much more comparable than originally expected, and they were able to keep their operational costs to an absolute minimum. This type of scenario has proven true over and over when models are built to show longer-term cost benefits for electrical and HVAC systems, using analysis from an experienced team of designers and engineers.

While the greater economic outlook for the cannabis industry is in flux, a thoughtful approach can help operations avoid negative outcomes. As more and more companies continue to enter the space, investments roll in and supply rises, we will all watch to see if demand will match this growth. Taking note of incremental methods for impacting the bottom line, such as smart HVAC and electrical system selection, can mean the difference between success and failure (and profit margins!) in this turbulent landscape.

Consumer Protection Laws & CBD Products—What You Need to Know Before Going to Market

By Jonathan C. Sandler, Alissa Gardenswartz
No Comments

By now, cannabis companies have heard that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a slew of warning letters to sellers of CBD products for selling unapproved and mislabeled drugs and illegally adulterated food, as prohibited by the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. However, companies marketing CBD products should know that making any health-related claims about their products also exposes them to liability under state and federal consumer protection laws. These laws additionally prevent CBD sellers from misrepresenting how much CBD is contained in their products, and even govern how companies communicate with their customers via text message. As the former head of consumer protection enforcement in Colorado and a lawyer routinely defending consumer protection class actions in California, we have seen firsthand how not considering these laws when developing a sales and marketing strategy can result in protracted and expensive litigation.

Consumer Protection Laws – Federal and State

Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act provides that “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce . . . are declared unlawful.”1 The FTC enforces this law, and has clarified that “deceptive” practices involve a material representation, omission or practice that is likely to mislead a reasonable consumer under the circumstances.In other words, a claim is deceptive if an average consumer would believe and rely on the misleading claim to buy something. With the rise of social media marketing, the FTC has also issued disclosure guidelines for companies and influencers promoting products online.3 Every state has some form of consumer protection statute that similarly prevents deceptive marketing, and is typically enforced by the state’s attorney general. Many state laws also allow for consumers to bring actions themselves.

Both the FTC and state attorneys general have used these laws for decades against companies making scientifically unsupported health claims about their products. Just this month, the FTC and the Maine attorney general filed a lawsuit against two dietary supplement companies who were claiming that their products were a “miraculous natural solution” for life-threatening diseases. According to the lawsuit, the companies violated a 2018 settlement that required them to not make any health claims about their products without first conducting at least one randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to support the claims.4 While much of the enforcement around dietary supplements has focused on unsubstantiated health claims, other actions have been brought for improper “expert” endorsements as well as misrepresenting the amount of active ingredient contained in the supplement.5 In other words, these laws are used to police all manner of labelling and marketing of products, including those containing CBD. The FTC has already issued warning letters to CBD companies several times this year, and has stated that CBD sellers could be subject to enforcement for making unsubstantiated health claims.6

While consumer protection laws are largely focused on the content of advertisements, there are also laws that address how sellers can communicate with consumers. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) restricts telemarketing and the use of automated systems to contact consumers, and applies to both voice calls and text messaging. Both the FTC and state attorneys general can enforce the TCPA, and consumers can bring private TCPA actions as well. Because the TCPA allows for courts to award $500 per violation—that is, per illegal call or text—companies can face judgments into the millions of dollars.

Recent Consumer Protection Lawsuits in the Cannabis Industry

Cannabis is proving to be an attractive target for consumer protection litigation.All companies need to navigate consumer protection laws when they market their products, but class action lawyers may be pursuing cannabis companies in particular because of the products’ legal uncertainty, and because they provide opportunities for unique claims of deception. For example, a nationwide class of consumers recently filed a lawsuit in California against a CBD company that had received a warning letter from the FDA in November of this year, alleging that they would not have purchased the company’s CBD products if they knew selling the items was illegal.7 The consumers claimed violations of a variety of California and Arizona consumer protection laws, including those related to breach of warranty and unfair competition. Other lawsuits have been brought because products did not contain the amount of CBD as represented on the label, or because the product claimed to not contain THC when it did.8

Cannabis companies have been subject to TCPA class actions as well. Florida’s largest medical marijuana company has been accused of spamming customers with unwanted texts in violation of the TCPA.9 A dispensary with multiple locations in Colorado was also the subject of a TCPA class action complaint in Florida alleging that it did not obtain prior consent from consumers prior to texting them.10

Cannabis is proving to be an attractive target for consumer protection litigation. However, companies can head off lawsuits by thoroughly vetting their marketing strategies with experienced consumer protection lawyers before going to market.


References

 

  1.  15 U.S.C. Sec. 45(a)(1).
  2. See FTC Policy Statement on Deception, October 14, 1983.
  3. See Disclosures 101 for Social Media Influencers at https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/disclosures-101-social-media-influencers.
  4. See https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/12/ftc-state-maine-file-contempt-action-against-dietary-supplement.
  5. See FTC v. Nobetes Corp., Case No. 2:18-cv-10068 (C. D. Cal) (complaint against supplement company for using deceptive endorsements); “New York Attorney General Targets Mislabeled Herbal Supplements,” https://www.npr.org/2015/02/03/383578263/new-york-attorney-general-targets-mislabeled-herbal-supplements. (detailing the New York attorney general’s investigation of herbal supplements, and finding that they did not contain the ingredients as advertised).
  6. See https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2019/09/making-cbd-health-claims-careful-disseminating.
  7. Fausett et al. v. KOI CBD, LLC., Case No. 2:19-cv-10318 (C. D. Cal).
  8. Potter et al v. PotNetwork Holdings, Inc., Diamond CBD, Inc., and First Capital Venture Co., Case No. 19-cv-24017, (S. D. FL); Horn v. Medical Marijuana, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-701-FPG, (W.D.N.Y.).
  9. Jaslow v. Trulieve, Inc., Case No. 4:19-cv-RH-CAS (N.D. Fla.).
  10. Stinnett v. Hobby Farms, LLC d/b/a A Cut Above, Case No. 9:18-cv-81449-RLR (S.D. Fla.)

Banking Rights in the Hemp Industry

By Jonathan Miller
2 Comments

The hemp industry has experienced and continues to see a surge of growth and awareness nationwide. Following the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill, permanently legalizing the crop and removing hemp from its classification as a controlled substance, consumer demand for hemp and hemp products like CBD have skyrocketed.

Unfortunately, there remain many challenges. Confusion about hemp’s legal status – and the differences between hemp and its intoxicating cousin, marijuana – has too often stymied commerce in the industry, particularly with traditional banking products and merchant services being limited in their availability to those trying to grow their businesses.

This month, we witnessed a breakthrough development. Upon the bipartisan urging of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senator Ron Wyden, four federal banking regulatory agencies – Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Reserve, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network – joined by the Conference of State Bank Supervisors – issued joint guidance confirming the legal status of hemp and the requirements for banks providing financial services to businesses.

Just some of the many CBD products on the market today.

The new guidance achieves many necessary benchmarks integrating hemp and banking, such as no longer requiring banks to file suspicious activity reports for customers solely because they are engaged in the growth or cultivation of hemp in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. Further, the guidance clarifies the difference between hemp businesses and marijuana businesses – adding yet another point of relief to banks concerned with national and state legality.

The hope is that the joint guidance should alleviate any fear of audits or regulatory crackdowns that have slowed financial institution integration with the hemp industry. However, this does not require banks or financial entities to participate in business with hemp companies. Nor does this guidance directly address the legality of hemp-derived CBD commerce.

With all of this in mind, there is still work to be done. Priority #1 is passage of the SAFE Banking Act. This bipartisan legislation, initially focused on providing a green light to marijuana banking in states where pot is legal, was amended to ensure a separate safe harbor for hemp, with far fewer hoops since it is not a controlled substance. It also directs federal financial agencies to provide clear guidance to both banks and other financial institutions – such as credit card companies – that hemp and CBD commerce are legal. The bill was passed overwhelmingly by the House in September and we are hopeful to see full Senate consideration soon.

Banking is one of the key targets that the hemp industry is aiming to secure, as this will allow for an increase in legal hemp business growth and practices. The goal of the U.S. Hemp Roundtable is to provide consumers with safe and legal hemp products along with the knowledge that the companies are meeting the highest standards and complying with national and state law.