Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: February 21, 2019
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comCanada’s legalization of recreational marijuana and overhaul of its trademark law is fueling cannabis trademark registrations. But is it time for U.S. companies to follow suit?

Cannabis remains a Schedule I substance in the U.S. under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Cannabis businesses therefore often face difficulties securing federal IP protections, particularly with respect to trademarks. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has consistently refused federal registration of medical marijuana and other cannabis-related trademarks.
In addition to citing the CSA, the USPTO’s denials also rely on 37 C.F.R. § 2.69, which states that “[w]hen the sale or transportation of any product for which registration of a trademark is sought is regulated under an Act of Congress, the Patent and Trademark Office may make appropriate inquiry as to compliance with such Act for the sole purpose of determining lawfulness of the commerce recited in the application.” The Lanham Act governs U.S. trademark law and is empowered by the Commerce Clause, and so at the federal level “lawfulness” is denied and trademarks in the cannabis space are federally ineligible.
Under Canadian law, it is possible to register a trademark for cannabis-related products and services. There are nearly 2,000 trademarks listed on the Canadian trademark register, with goods or services containing the word “cannabis” or “marijuana,” the majority of which were filed within the past two years. The number is expected to grow now that Canada has legalized recreational marijuana and amended its Trademark Act.
Effective June 17, 2019, Canadian trademark applicants no longer have to demonstrate use of the mark in Canada as a requisite to registration. In contrast, under U.S. trademark law, except in certain limited filings based on foreign registrations, to secure a registration applicants must be using the mark in U.S. commerce.
The change in Canada makes it attractive for companies to file trademark applications before they are ready to enter the Canadian market. For the U.S. cannabis industry, it also allows companies to begin protecting their brands even though it’s not currently possible to do so under U.S. federal trademark law.
While it may be relatively easy to secure trademark protection for cannabis products in Canada, you may not be able to use those marks like you planned. Any use of the trademark must also comply with the Cannabis Act’s marketing rules, which are stringent. Specifically, it is prohibited to promote cannabis or a cannabis accessory or any service related to cannabis, including:
Canada’s cannabis regulations also include strict labeling requirements. Each product label must include a standardized cannabis symbol that meets certain size, appearance, and placement requirements. In addition, mandatory health warning messages and THC content are required on all cannabis packaging.
Despite the above restrictions, trademarks can still be beneficial to cannabis companies in Canada and the United States. The expected growth in both markets is also expected to increase the number of “trolls,” which seek to register intellectual property before the rightful owner and then later attempt to extort payment to transfer the rights.
For current and prospective cannabis businesses, we encourage you to work with an experienced attorney to determine how best to protect your intellectual property rights, both at home and abroad.
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, William R. Samuels, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work, at 201-806-3364.
Disclaimer: Possession, use, distribution, and/or sale of cannabis is a Federal crime and is subject to related Federal policy. Legal advice provided by Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC is designed to counsel clients regarding the validity, scope, meaning, and application of existing and/or proposed cannabis law. Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC will not provide assistance in circumventing Federal or state cannabis law or policy, and advice provided by our office should not be construed as such.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Case law following the 2010 amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 offers guidance on how courts are likely to address whether an expert witness’s AI records are subject to discovery. Key Takeaways Rule 26 Expert Discovery After the 2010 Amendments This article addresses the question courts and lawyers have faced in recent cases: […]
Author: Chris Seelinger

“Show how 3M is 0% at fault.” The absurd tale of how a 350-page ChatGPT history for 3M’s expert witness was produced during a deposition is more likely than you think. It’s an inevitable trend, and an unsettled question for federal courts as experts make generative AI part of their workflow. Key Takeaways Expert Witness […]
Author: Chris Seelinger

Screenshots have changed the risks of electronic communications. The screenshot problem is that messages intended for one person or a small group can be copied, forwarded, preserved, and ultimately presented to opposing counsel, regulators, journalists, customers, or a jury. Businesses should recognize that a truly private digital conversation is increasingly unreliable and ensure their policies, […]
Author: Sean M. Pena

Developers, engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contractors, and equipment suppliers each play a critical role in completing a BESS project. However, when equipment costs rise, deliveries are delayed, or regulations change, determining who bears the financial consequences can become contentious. Well-drafted project agreements are essential to sound risk allocation. Key Takeaways This article is Part […]
Author: Nicholas Wall

IP infringement occurs when someone uses your intellectual property without your permission or beyond the scope of the permission you granted. Common examples of IP infringement include copying a product’s patented features or using a trademarked logo in a way that is likely to confuse consumers about the source or affiliation of goods or services. […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki

When facing public allegations of wrongdoing, companies should not let the speed of the public conversation dictate the speed of an investigation. An investigation designed to confirm a preferred narrative rather than establish the facts can create serious problems later, particularly if litigation, regulatory scrutiny, or employment claims follow. Key Takeaways When public allegations surface […]
Author: Sean M. Pena
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!