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 | 2 min read | 06.15.26
Kansas Federal Court Applies “Selective Enforcement” Theory to Reject DTSA Claim
A Kansas federal court held that inconsistent enforcement of trade secret rights can defeat a claim under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA). In Edelman Financial Engines, LLC v. Mariner Wealth Advisors LLC, No. 2:23-cv-02515-HLT (D. Kan. June 5, 2026), the court applied a selective enforcement theory, holding that when a company does not consistently pursue legal remedies against similarly situated former employees, that inconsistency can be affirmative evidence that it failed to protect its trade secrets. While the selective enforcement theory has appeared in academic hypothetical discussions, the decision appears to be one of the clearest judicial applications of a “selective enforcement” theory in a trade secret case.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
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


