Curiously, this doesn’t seem to address the fact that you have to produce d9 before d8(or hot carts in general - guess these guys didn’t wanna throw themselves under the bus)
Wow, a big victory for the d8 crowd. I’m frankly stunned. Of course this doesn’t bypass the “most d8 is hot” issue, but definitely gives a good leg to stand on.
2 Likes
WOW! <3 Such a good read.
1 Like
Lots of issues to settle still:
WIP(HIA/RE judge didn’t seem to like the argument for WIP over .3%)
State legislation banning Delta 6 cis or trans THC(D8 under the monoterpenoid naming system)
Non-naturally occuring D9 being created in the process
D8 in prepared forms for consumption
Etc
How much you wanna bet we see Cake thrown under the bus in federal court?
2 Likes
Great read thank you for sharing. Its almost comical considering cake knocked off cookies. But i imagine they just havent being sued yet or they dont hit enough of the trademark infringements
I’d argue it’s different enough. Different color scheme, different name - they might have a problem if they ripped the strain names but Cookies couldn’t enforce that federally right now(except Gary Payton/Larry Bird maybe)
Is Cookies a defensible trademark? I would think not since their products are not federally legal. Probably in the merch category.
1 Like
I think they pay a licensing fee from the mj company to the clothing brand? Gary Payton/Larry Bird I’d imagine they’ve paid licensing fees to, they’re entitled to restrict items bearing their names
The word cookies is, in all likelihood, too generic to trademark.
in a broad context yes, but for clothing it’s protectable. Trade dress is also a thing
Not for a product that has nothing to do with literal cookies.
1 Like
While this is a fascinating decision, it’s important to keep in mind that it’s within the context of a preliminary injunction. The plaintiff (here, the company that makes the “Cake” D8 pens) only has to demonstrate “a likelihood of success on the merits.” By the nature of preliminary injunction motions, the record is very limited which the court here acknowledges. The court said that they had some FDA materials which “refer to delta-8 THC as one of over 100 cannabinoids produced naturally by the cannabis plant.” The court stated that “this indicates that the delta-8 THC in the e-cigarette liquid is properly understood as a derivative, extract, or cannabinoid origination from the cannabis plant and containing not more than 0.3% delta-9 THC.”
Once the record is fully developed back in the district court, I’m very curious to see how the court will rule once they understand that the delta-8 THC was not extracted directly from the hemp plant, rather it was converted from CBD.
In any event, thanks for sharing!!
2 Likes