All material subject to strictly enforced copyright laws. © 2022 Managing IP is part of the Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC group.

EUIPO conference: Avoid TM cannabis slang ‘like the plague’

Gordon-Humphreys-RHS-EUIPO-IPCLC2022Alicante
The EUIPO's Gordon Humphreys (R) in discussion with fellow panellist Francesco Mattina (L)

The chair of the EUIPO’s First and Third Boards of Appeal gave an entertaining rundown of how examiners weed out cannabis trademarks

Cannabis trademark filers should choose their words carefully and “avoid like the plague” any slang words associated with the plant, said the chairperson of the EUIPO’s First and Third Boards of Appeal at a conference in Alicante today, July 7.

Gordon Humphreys, speaking on a panel moderated by Managing IP’s senior reporter Max Walters at the IP Case Law Conference, gave an overview of cannabis trademark filings and how the EUIPO boards approach them.

As he delved into the background, he mistakenly said the European Commission had been cultivating hemp – rather than discussing the issues around it – prompting plenty of laughter among the audience and a slightly sheepish self-correction from Humphreys himself.

He soon noted that EU cannabis filings have boomed in the past few years, though three quarters of them never make it onto the register.

That’s partly because there is no specific EU-wide legislation dealing with cannabis marks, he explained, but also because of the challenges such marks face when it comes to public policy, lack of distinctiveness, and descriptiveness.

Public policy is the biggest sticking point, particularly as EU member states’ norms vary greatly, Humphreys added.

The boards therefore often focus on the perception of consumers “with reasonable sensitivities and thresholds”, and those who encounter cannabis signs in their day-to-day lives.

“So it’s not acceptable to have a sign that trivialises the war on drugs,” he gave as one example.

However, cannabis filers often don’t help themselves in their choice of names, Humphreys added, noting that “imagination is often sorely lacking”.

Reflecting on two rejections, he said the boards vetoed a figurative application for simply ‘Cannabis’ (beers and alcoholic beverages), and another for ‘Cannubis’ (e-publication on medicinal cannabis), both for being descriptive.

Humphreys ended by saying cannabis applicants should avoid drug-related imagery or symbols, as well as colloquial terms like ‘pot’, and should minimise or omit references to ‘cannabis’ or ‘hemp’.

He reminded the audience that trademark registration doesn’t guarantee usability, owing to a separate regulatory system for cannabis products.

The two-day conference ends tomorrow, July 8. You can read more coverage here.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Sources say that the exam format should be revamped to test aptitude rather than rote learning and increase accessibility
The Italian firm that built the UPC case management system plans to launch a full training course in October
ITC counsel explain why companies will continue to bring trade secret complaints to the venue and talk about how to tackle challenges
Google and Sonos patent war continues; CNIPA finishes first administrative patent trials; Oppo halts German sales after Nokia wins; Chugai settles Fresenius suit; Taylor Swift claims she never heard Playas Gon’ Play; AI can’t be inventor, says Federal Circuit
Brands and retailers should educate their marketing departments and get help from their sales teams so private label products don’t become a major problem
The UK government wants to stop local tech going to China, but tech transfer offices often have few options
Hubertus Schacht of the Munich Regional Court shares his thoughts on German SEP trends and their influence on the UPC
Trademark counsel applaud the EUIPO’s new filing system but reveal it has come with teething issues
The executive vice president of partnerships and acquisitions at the NPE explains how his company’s deal with Intel came to be
South Korean lawyers welcome the trademark guidelines but say the appellate board, courts, and other IP offices may not necessarily agree with the KIPO
We use cookies to provide a personalized site experience.
By continuing to use & browse the site you agree to our Privacy Policy.
I agree