Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Seeing Green: Protecting Brands In the Cannabis Industry
The "green rush" has hit. While nearly all cannabis entrepreneurs are keeping a keen eye on legislative developments, the savvy are already well ahead in what may be the key to unlocking the true value in the cannabis industry — branding. Much like the craft beer boom before it, success in the cannabis industry will not be driven solely by the acquisition of cultivation or dispensary licenses, or infusion of investment capital, but also by how well companies develop, protect and exploit their brands to distinguish themselves from the crowd.
Branding is not a new concept, nor are the various intellectual property laws that protect brands. What is new to most is how this burgeoning industry can take advantage of those laws within the context of state and federal restrictions perceived (often mistakenly) to limit the ability to protect and enforce brands within the cannabis space. The good news is that there are already a number of powerful tools that cannabis entrepreneurs can use to protect their brand, along with strategic alternatives that can be used to best position those businesses if and when the current restrictions are lifted.
Trademarks
When it comes to branding, trademark is king. Trademarks are the words, names or symbols used to identify the source of goods and services, and to distinguish those goods and services from those offered by others. Indeed, the general public may be familiar with a brand/trademark without knowing the actual name of the company that owns that brand/trademark. So how does one go about securing trademark rights for cannabis-related goods and services?
Start Using It
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?