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 | 6 min read | 11.26.25
From ‘Second’ to ‘First:’ Federal Circuit Tackles Obvious Claim Errors
Patent claims must be clear and definite, as they set the boundaries of the patentee’s rights. Occasionally, however, claim language contains errors, such as typographical mistakes or incorrect numbering. Courts possess very limited authority to correct such errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized that judicial correction is appropriate only in rare circumstances, where (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, and (2) the proposed correction is the sole reasonable interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Client Alert | 5 min read | 11.26.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.25.25
Brussels Court Clarifies the EU’s SPC Manufacturing Waiver Regulation Rules
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.24.25
