Choosing Your Cannabis Trademark

We’ve gone over the obstacles to obtaining federal trademark protection at length, but given recent inquiries our cannabis trademark attorneys have been receiving lately, it seemed high time to revisit what exactly makes a trademark “strong” or “weak.”

I regularly have clients come to me with catchy marks they or their brand consultants have developed, but are not eligible for trademark protection. There is a spectrum of strength when it comes to trademarks. The distinctiveness, or strength, of a mark will determine both how well the mark performs from a marketing and branding perspective, as well as the level of legal protection to which it is entitled. When a mark is highly distinctive, identifying the owner of the mark as the source of the goods sold, the mark is strong. And when a mark is not inherently distinctive, or when a mark is the same or very similar to one already used by others, the mark is weak. Here are the types of marks on the spectrum, from strongest to weakest:

• Fanciful Marks: These marks are inherently distinctive and consist of a combination of letters with no meaning; they are invented words. Some examples of famous fanciful marks are EXXON and KODAK. These marks can be more difficult from a marketing perspective initially, because the public must be educated through advertising before they will associate the owner’s goods or services with the mark.

• Arbitrary Marks: These marks are composed of a word or words that have a common meaning, but have no relation to the goods or services to which the mark is applied. Perhaps the most famous example of an arbitrary mark is APPLE, used on computers. As with fanciful marks, these marks are highly distinctive.

• Suggestive Marks: Suggestive marks hint at or suggest the nature of a product without specifically describing the product. An example of this type of mark is AIRBUS for airplanes. These marks can be appealing from a marketing perspective, because they require less education of consumers than arbitrary or fanciful marks, but they are also typically entitled to less extensive legal protection.

• Descriptive Marks: These marks are comprised of words that actually describe the goods or services provided; descriptive marks are too weak to function as a trademark and cannot be registered. Note that it is possible to register a descriptive mark if it has obtained secondary meaning due to use in commerce for some years – in the nascent cannabis industry, however, it is unlikely many marks would meet these requirements.

• Generic Words: These words and phrases are so inherently descriptive of a product or service as to be incapable of functioning as a trademark; they are the common names of the product or service in question, and cannot be registered.

One of the most common grounds for rejecting a trademark application is that the proposed mark is “merely descriptive.” For example, “World’s Best Cannabis” would be merely descriptive for cannabis and cannot be registered. Trademarks that are merely the name of an individual, for example, are also ineligible for federal trademark protection. So, a name like “Alison’s Cannabis” wouldn’t fly. Similarly (and this is one we see often in the cannabis industry), marks that are primarily geographically descriptive will be refused registration by the USPTO. For example, “Seattle Cannabis Company” and “Washington Grown” are primarily geographically descriptive and thus not eligible for federal trademark protection.

And on the flip-side, marks can be rejected for being deceptively misdescriptive as well. Interestingly, the USPTO, in its online guidance and resources, gives the following example of a deceptively misdescriptive mark: “[T]he mark ‘THC Tea’ would be deceptively misdescriptive of tea-based beverages not containing THC.” So if you are registering your mark for ancillary goods or services, as we’ve previously suggested, be mindful that including a reference to cannabis in your mark will not render the mark deceptively misdescriptive of those goods or services.

If you’re starting from scratch in branding your company or products, it’s a great idea to run any proposed marks by your trademark attorney before you invest too heavily in brand development. An experienced cannabis trademark attorney will be able to quickly identify marks that are merely descriptive, and can advise whether you run the risk of adopting a mark that is deceptively misdescriptive. And remember, if you don’t intend to obtain a federal trademark registration of your brand, that is still not a reason to adopt a descriptive or weak mark. If your name is a no-brainer, chances are that someone else has already thought of it and used it as well. Or if they haven’t adopted it yet, they likely will down the road. When the market becomes flooded with similar names, it becomes difficult for consumers to tell them apart. Putting in the initial work to develop a strong brand is always worth the effort, especially in a rapidly growing legal cannabis industry.

source https://www.cannalawblog.com/choosing-your-cannabis-trademark/

Labeling CBD Products: The Unique Case of Indiana

Immunotherapy Found Most Effective in Men

Immunotherapy Found Most Effective in Men

Immunotherapy found most effective in men and is available in multiple clinical trials: https://www.cancerresearch.org/patients/clinical-trials. It is a treatment process being used for mesothelioma patients and doctors are constantly researching it. They are trying to find the best way to treat cancer through immunotherapy.

A recent study conducted has shown that immunotherapy is most effective in men as compared to women. Moreover, it does not mean that it is not effective for women, but has been found immunotherapy is most effective in men . This is really an impressive new way to treat cancer that can change the cancer treatment standards. It is better to learn how this treatment works and how it how it can help to treat mesothelioma.

Recent Study on Immunotherapy

Lancet Oncology has recently published a review and analysis of the new high-quality immunotherapy clinical trials. The common question of interest was, “Is there a difference in how well women and men with cancer respond to a type of immunotherapy?”

If the samples are larger, then the researchers are able to uncover differences between the groups. In the case of the Lancet Oncology review, the sample groups were men and women who received immunotherapy.

How Women and Men Respond to Immunotherapy

Researchers want to understand if there is a difference in the efficiency of immune checkpoint inhibitors between women and men. They want to study the overall survival rate of female and male participants. The review has included 20 high-quality inhibitors. The control trials of four immune checkpoint inhibitors:

• Tremelimumab
• Opdivo
• Keytruda
• Yervoy

All of the 20 studies included 11,351 people with solid cancer. From 11,351, 33 percent were women and sixty-seven percent of participants were men. Of which 63 percent of the people in the studies had lung cancer or melanoma. Men who received checkpoint inhibitors had 28 percent less risk of dying compared to those men who did not receive these drugs. On the other hand, 14 percent of women had less risk of passing away as compared to those women who did not receive the drugs.
The difference shows a clear response rate to immune checkpoint among men compared to women. The study shows that all the patients received benefit from the immune checkpoint inhibitors, but the response rate was higher in men as compared to women.

Should women be considered for immunotherapy?

According to Dr. Omar Abdel-Rahman, “Female patients who are otherwise indicated for treatment with any immune checkpoint inhibitor should not be denied treatment solely on the basis of these findings.”

The women with advanced cancer did not seem to get any benefit from the immune checkpoint inhibitors as compared to men.

How to Get the Most Out of Immunotherapy

Cancer care has recently arranged an hour education workshop with a panel of immunotherapy experts.

In the first part, they have presented an overview of the immunotherapy.

The second part was exclusively focused on the side effects of the immunotherapy.

They have discussed the difference between the chemotherapy and immunotherapy and also its side effect and how to address these side effects on the well-being of the patient. Immunotherapy found most effective in men but this does not mean treatment for Women should be negated as a viable option.

Who We Are

Goldberg, Persky & White P.C. has been at the forefront of complex mesothelioma & asbestos litigation for over forty years. We have the nations leading Maryland mesothelioma lawyer, florida mesothelioma lawyer, New York Mesothelioma lawyer, and best mesothelioma lawyer ready to help you now. Stage 4 mesothelioma cancer symptoms are critical to understand for anyone diagnosed with mesothelioma in the United States.

 

The post Immunotherapy Found Most Effective in Men appeared first on Goldberg, Persky & White P.C..

from
https://gpwlaw-wv.com/immunotherapy-found-most-effective-in-men/

source http://gpwlawwv.weebly.com/blog/immunotherapy-found-most-effective-in-men

Can’t Trademark that Cannabis Logo? Try Copyright

Cannabis, Alcohol, States and Subsidies

Recently, there has been some talk here in Oregon that the state is not doing enough to support licensed cannabis businesses economically. These businesses generated more than $70 million in state tax revenue in FY 2017, after all. Although that revenue does not yet approach the combined $373 million in average annual revenue for beer, wine and spirits (combined), it appears to be closing the gap quickly, despite no option for interstate sales.

Comparing marijuana and alcohol receipts in Oregon is an awkward proposition, given the fact that Oregon marijuana revenues are collected through sales tax, whereas beer and wine vendors pay the state an excise tax, and liquor is distributed and sold by the state itself. At the end of the day, though, the economic impact of regulated cannabis will continue to gain on–and eat into–the alcohol economy, both in Oregon and nationwide. That is especially true if we factor in industrial hemp.

So what is the state doing to subsidize cannabis businesses in Oregon? Not much. The state did pass House Bill 4014 a few years back, which allows cannabis establishments to deduct business expenses allowable under the federal tax code when filing state returns; but that modest gesture pales in comparison to the institutional support given to craft beer and wine. Specifically, here are a few of the ways the wine industry is supported and subsidized by the state of Oregon:

• The state created the Oregon Wine Board (OWB) to promote development of the wine industry within the state, and coordinate both domestic and report marketing efforts for the industry. OWB receives administrative support from the Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services, and spends around $2.2 million annually on promoting the Oregon industry.
• The state created the Oregon Wine Research Institute, housed at Oregon State University, to support Oregon grape growing and wine production.
• Oregon statutes offer a tax exemption for the first 40,000 gallons, or 151,000 liters, of wine sold annually by any producer in Oregon, which effectively exempts 90% of them from paying any state excise tax.
• The state offers grants for vineyards in an effort to increase tourism, as well as OWB grants related to viticulture and enology.
• Oregon winery license fees are paltry compared to cannabis license fees. (Both licenses are issued and billed through the Oregon Liquor Control Commission.)

The above list is not exhaustive: It represents about five minutes of lawyerly Google research. And at first glance, the favoritism shown to alcohol by the state feels unfair: As with the local wine industry, the Oregon cannabis industry has a world-renowned product, crowned with distinctive appellations. So why doesn’t the state do much for cannabis, aside from fulfilling its democratic mandate to roll out the program, and defending that program from the feds?

There are probably several factors at play:

• “Marijuana” remains a Schedule I controlled substance at the federal level. While states may see a path forward to licensing cannabis businesses under the Tenth Amendment (see here and here), actually using public dollars to support specific businesses may feel like a bridge too far.
• More people oppose the cannabis industry than the alcohol industry, so subsidies would likely face strong pushback from a vocal segment of the population.
• Many of the Oregon wine subsidies listed above were enacted in periods of greater budget stability for the state, back when timber revenues and related federal subsidies were a real thing, and the state pension system was not $22 billion in the hole. Today, those alcohol subsidies are entrenched (although recent efforts at further subsidies have failed.)
• The Oregon cannabis lobbies are smaller than alcohol lobbies.
• The creation of a cannabis regulatory regime has been a heavy legislative lift over the past few years here in Oregon, crowding out other conversations related to cannabis.

With all of that said, Oregon could probably do more for the cannabis industry, and it could be more creative. California has at least explored the idea of a state-chartered bank. Along those lines, Washington has helped its legal businesses to open bank accounts, and Hawaii has announced a cashless system for buying medical marijuana. None of these actions are subsidies, but they do make business operations easier and they ultimately contribute to economic efficiency.

Other jurisdictions have gone even further. Colorado, for example, has had a research grant program going back to 2014. And certain cities, like Oakland and San Francisco, have offered bona fide, traditional subsidies like free rent and incubator program support to select marijuana entrepreneurs. So it is possible to funnel public funding into cannabis businesses — at least certain types of businesses, in certain cases.

Oregon will kick off another legislative session in early 2019. Most likely, the state will discuss important regulatory issues, like our U.S. Attorney’s concern with oversupply, alongside the usual re-tread items, like social consumption and event permits. Although these new business permissions would be marginally helpful, hopefully there is also room for discussion on how the state can support its regulated cannabis industry more directly, as it does with alcohol. Then, when federal prohibition ends in a couple of years, we will want it looking something like this.

source https://www.cannalawblog.com/states-cannabis-alcohol-and-subsidies/

Washington Cannabis Regulators See Problems, Propose Action That Won’t Solve Said Problems

California Cannabis Countdown: Contra Costa County (Hearing Today!)

California has 58 counties and 482 incorporated cities across the state, each with the option to create its own rules or ban marijuana altogether. In this California Cannabis Countdown series, we cover who is banning cannabis, who is embracing cannabis (and how), and everyone in between.  For each city and county, we’ll discuss its location, history with cannabis, current law, and proposed law to give you a clearer picture of where to locate your California cannabis business, how to keep it legal, and what you will and won’t be allowed to do.

Our last California Cannabis Countdown post was on the City of Antioch, and before that the City of San Jose, the City of Cotati, the City of San Luis Obispo, the City of Redding, the City of San Rafael, the City of Hayward, Alameda County, Oakland, San Francisco, Sonoma County, the City of Davis, the City of Santa Rosa, County and City of San Bernardino, Marin County, Nevada County, the City of Lynwood, the City of Coachella, Los Angeles County, the City of Los Angeles, the City of Desert Hot Springs, Sonoma County, the City of Sacramento, the City of Berkeley, Calaveras County, Monterey County and the City of Emeryville.

Today’s post is on the County of Contra Costa. Welcome to the California Cannabis Countdown.

Location. Home to Mt. Diablo, Contra Costa County occupies the northern portion of the East Bay with its county seat in Martinez. The County has two cannabis friendly cities within its border: Richmond and El Cerrito. During the hot days of summer, you can make your to Six Flags Hurricane Harbor in Concord.

History with Cannabis: Contra Costa County did not embrace cannabis businesses like many of its other Bay Area neighbors (San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, and Santa Rosa to name just a few). In 2008, the Board of Supervisors adopted an ordinance prohibiting the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries. On October 24, 2017, the County passed an ordinance prohibiting commercial cannabis activities and regulating personal cultivation. However, because nearly sixty-one percent (61%) of the County’s residents voted in favor of the Adult-Use of Marijuana Act (a /k/a Prop 64), an outright prohibition was not feasible in the long-term. Regular readers of this series can guess what happened next: The County held a number of hearings, with input from a number of local departments, to study the issue. It’s been a slow haul but the County’s been moving in the right direction – incremental progress is better than no progress.

Recent Cannabis Laws: On June 26, 2018, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on a cannabis ordinance regulating commercial cannabis activities in the County. The ordinance passed and Contra Costa County joined the enlightenment era — Welcome! The ordinance will not take effect for thirty (30) days. It will take some time before the County is issuing cannabis licenses to businesses but it is always good news when a new jurisdiction revokes its prohibition. The new ordinance does the following:

• Authorizes up to four (4) storefront retailer permits. Storefront retailers are authorized to make deliveries;
• Authorizes up to ten (10) cultivation permits (outdoor, mixed-light, and indoor are allowed). However, if a licensee holds both a retailer and cultivation permit, that cultivation permit will not count against the cap;
• Authorizes up to two (2) manufacturing permits (non-volatile only) in an agricultural zoning district. However, manufacturing permits in non-agricultural districts and those integrated with a cultivation permit in an agricultural district will not count against the cap;
• Authorizes distribution. The ordinance does not address whether there will be a cap on distribution permits;
• Authorizes testing facilities. The ordinance is also silent on a cap for testing facilities;
• Delivery retailers licensed outside the County are permitted to make deliveries within it so long as they obtain a County business license;
• The County will develop procedures and scoring criteria for prospective cannabis businesses;
• Requires a cannabis business to obtain a health permit from the County; and
• Cannabis permits will have an initial term of five years;

Proposed Cannabis Laws: The Board of Supervisors will hold a hearing today on a proposed tax schedule for cannabis businesses (Come on, you knew taxes were on the way). If the Board approves the tax measure it will be placed on this November’s ball and require the approval of a majority of voters in the County to take effect. The proposed taxation schedule is as follows:

• Indoor cultivation: $7 a square foot up to $10 a square foot;
• Greenhouse cultivation: $4 a square foot up to $7 a square foot;
• Outdoor cultivation: $2 a square foot up to $4 a square foot;
• Nurseries: $1 a square foot up to $2 a square foot;
• Manufacturing: 2.5% of gross receipts up to 4% of gross receipts;
• Distribution: 2% of gross receipts up to 3% of gross receipts; and
• Retailer: 4% of gross receipts up to 6% of gross receipts.

For its foray into regulating cannabis activities, this is a big step for the County and we applaud the fact that it will authorize seed-to-sale license types. Would we like to see the removal of permit caps? Sure, but with local jurisdiction prohibitions still being one of biggest impediments to the cannabis industry in California, we will gladly welcome Contra County into the fold.

source https://www.cannalawblog.com/california-cannabis-countdown-contra-costa-county-hearing-today/