Cannabis Trademarks Not Stoned by PTO
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.07.19
In new guidelines issued this past Thursday, May 2, 2019, the United States Patent & Trademark Office clarified the procedure for examining trademarks for cannabis-derived goods, services involving cannabis, and cannabis production. These guidelines explain that the 2018 Farm Bill exempts hemp (defined as cannabis plants and derivatives such as CBD that contain no more than 0.3 percent THC on a dry-weight basis) from the definition of marijuana in the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq.)(CSA).
Thus, for applications that identify goods and/or related services encompassing cannabis or CBD, the 2018 Farm Bill potentially removes the CSA as a ground for refusal of registration under the following conditions:
- The goods and/or related services are derived from hemp.
- The identification of goods and/or services specify that the hemp products contain less than 0.3 percent THC.
- The application was filed on or after December 20, 2018, except that for applications filed before December 20, 2018, applicants have the option of amending the filing date and filing basis of the application to overcome the CSA as a ground of refusal.
Despite these guidelines, applicants should be aware that hemp related goods and/or services may still raise lawful-use issues under other laws, including the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA).
A link to the guidelines may be accessed here: USPTO Examination Guide 1-19.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
