Photo of Gene Markin

This is part 3 of a 3 part blog. Please click here to read Part 1 – Generic Marks. Please click here to read Part 2 – Merely Descriptive & Geographically Descriptive


A mark can be refused registration if it bears a significant resemblance to a government insignia. In In re Shabby Chic Brands LLC, 122 USPQ2d 1139 (TTAB 2017), Shabby Chic Brands, LLC sought to register an image of “an ornate, feathered crown” for a variety of furniture and decorative housewares. The Trademark Examining Attorney refused registration based on Section 2(b) of the Lanham Act, which prohibits registration of marks that “consist of or comprise the flag or coat of arms or other insignia. . . of any foreign nation.” The Examining Attorney believed the proposed mark resembled the official emblem of the Prince of Wales, according to the illustration filed in accordance with the Paris Convention.


Continue Reading

This is part 2 of a 3 part blog. Please click here to read Part 1 – Generic Marks. Please click here to read Part 3 – Government Insignia & Surname


Trademarks are also non-registrable under the Lanham Act if the mark, when used in connection with applicant’s goods or services, is merely descriptive of them. 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1). In a recent case, In re Houston Bites, LLC, Serial No. 87170141, applicant Houston Bites LLC attempted to register “Houston Bites” for services identified as “providing a website featuring non-downloadable photographs regarding restaurants, food and beverages.” The examining USPTO attorney refused registration on the ground that the mark was merely descriptive of the service in question: providing a website of photos related to light meals and snacks located in Houston, Texas. Houston was merely descriptive of applicant’s location, and a dictionary entry that defined “bites” as light meals or snacks bolstered the notion that the word bites was merely descriptive of what applicant’s services provided images of. If all individual components of the mark were descriptive, then the composite mark was also descriptive and not registrable.
Continue Reading

Trademarks are product differentiators that help consumers recognize familiar brands that customers have come to associate with a certain perceived level of goodwill, reputation, quality, taste, consistency, and style. A form of shorthand, a unique signature of sorts, a trademark signals to consumers the source or origin of a particular good or service.

Walking into a McDonalds, we know how a cheeseburger is going to taste. Seeing a red and white striped curved awning with green domes that extend above the awning, we can expect to enjoy custard ice cream or Italian ice from Rita’s Italian Ice. Coffee served in a cup with a two tailed mermaid is, as we all know, from Starbucks.


Continue Reading

This is part 1 of a 3 part blog. Please click here to read Part 2 – Merely Descriptive & Geographically Descriptive. Please click here to read Part 3 – Government Insignia & Surname.


Despite being used lawfully in commerce, a trade or service mark may be refused registration by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) under Section 2 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (the “Lanham Act”) if the proposed mark is “generic,” “merely descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive,” or likely “to cause confusion” with another registered or used mark.


Continue Reading

Courts recognize four trademark categories within which every mark must fall: (1) Generic marks, (2) Descriptive marks, (3) Suggestive marks, and (4) Arbitrary or Fanciful marks.[i] At the far end on the spectrum, warranting the greatest level of trademark protection, stands arbitrary or fanciful marks—those words which offer no inherent description of the product. On the opposite end of the spectrum lies generic marks—those made up of common descriptors to which courts afford no trademark protection.[ii]

Continue Reading

In addition to intellectual property and banking law, bankruptcy law remains a complicated field for marijuana companies to access, let alone navigate. In the United States, The U.S. Trustee Program (“USTP”) is the component of the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) responsible for overseeing the administration of bankruptcy cases. The USTP appoints and supervises the 1,100 private trustees who handle every bankruptcy case across the country under federal bankruptcy laws.

Continue Reading

In recent years, various government branches and departments across the country who are responsible for policing the government’s own trademarks have been sending cease-and-desist letters and filing suit against local businesses that are using trademarks likely to either cause confusion as to the government’s sponsorship of or affiliation with the companies or dilute the famous qualities of the government’s distinctive marks.

Continue Reading

While 46 states have instituted laws permitting or decriminalizing cannabis or cannabis-based products in some way, prior events this year created an environment of legal uncertainty.

Since 2013, cannabis companies have relied on guidance contained within a trio of memos from former deputy U.S. Attorney General James Cole, which detailed the federal government’s concerns with preventing marijuana distribution to minors, gangs, or into states where the drug’s sale remains illegal, as well as preventing the use of the drug as a pretext to traffic other illegal drugs, in use with violent firearms, driving under the influence, and growing marijuana on public lands or on federal property.

Those companies who were compliant with state cannabis laws and did not run afoul of any of these concerns basically considered themselves as being safe from federal prosecution.

But that security diminished earlier this year when U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions rescinded the guidance in the Cole memos.
Continue Reading

Recently, U.S. Representative Matt Gaetz introduced the Medical Cannabis Research Act (the “Act”), which would facilitate and encourage federally-approved clinical trials testing the medicinal effects of chemicals found in the marijuana plant. The bill is notable because, if passed, it would bypass the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) as it relates to marijuana research licenses and would put the task in the hands of Congress.

Currently, the House Judiciary Committee, which is responsible for the drug enforcement efforts of the federal government, approved the measure. If this bill passes, it would provide an opening for more medical marijuana research, which has been virtually non-existent at the federal level over the last five decades.

Notably, the Act increases the number of federally-approved manufacturers of research-grade marijuana from one to three and sets strict criteria for those manufacturers to obtain and renew their registrations. Currently, only the University of Mississippi is permitted to grow research-grade marijuana.


Continue Reading

On September 5, 2018, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy announced that the NJ Department of Health (DOH) had received 146 applications from 106 different organizations to operate vertically integrated medical marijuana dispensary operations in the state. The application window closed on August 31, 2018 and the winners of the six for-profit licenses will be announced on November 1, 2018.

Each applicant had to identify in which of the three regions of New Jersey – North, Central, and South – the applicant was interested in operating an Alternative Treatment Center (ATC). Fifty applicants identified the northern region, 45 selected the central region, and 51 the southern region.


Continue Reading