Use in Commerce of Cannabis Trademarks

Home | Canna Law Blog | Use in Commerce of Cannabis Trademarks Table of Contents Toggle While cannabis brands need to be mindful of cannabis-specific trademark issues, they must also pay attention to trademarking basics. Back in January, we discussed three key trademark issues: distinctiveness, likelihood of confusion, and application bases. Today we continue our exploration of trademark basics, looking at the importance of choosing goods and services thoughtfully, in order to meet use in commerce requirements. How to show use in commerce In our previous post on the subject, we explained that a trademark will not be registered by the USPTO until it is used in commerce. To demonstrate use in commerce, the trademark applicant must produce a specimen, defined by the USPTO as "a sample of your trademark as used in commerce." This is true of all trademarks, regardless of whether they are cannabis trademarks, software trademarks or wicker basket trademarks. For goods, the most common form of specimen is a photo of a good bearing the trademark. Websites are popular specimens for services. Keep use in commerce requirements in mind from the start As many readers of this blog will know, the USPTO will not register trademarks for goods and services that are illegal at the federal level. This of course includes marijuana, which is a controlled substance, but also many CBD products than run afoul of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). For cannabis brands wishing to obtain some trademark protection, one strategy is to seek registration of their trademarks for legal goods and services. In some cases, this trademarking strategy is consistent with overall business strategy. For example, many brands look to merch as an important revenue stream, in which case it makes all the sense in the world to register the trademark for, as the case may be, apparel, sunglasses, lighters, and so on. The universe of legal goods and services is vast, giving brands a range of options. However, when describing goods and services on their applications, brands should not lose sight of the eventual requirement to show use in commerce for each class of goods and services. When selecting goods and services, brands should also be thinking of the practicalities of producing and offering same, in order to show use in commerce. "Safety schools" for showing use in commerce In an ideal world, the need to show use in commerce would not drive any brand's business activities; instead, specimens should be the natural byproduct of regular operations. Yet the reality is that many brands find themselves specimen-less when they get a Notice of Allowance (NOA) from the USPTO. This is a particular risk when there is a disconnect between a brand's core business and their trademark applications–an inevitably when that core business is federally unlawful. It is true that at the point where they get a NOA, brands still have three years to submit their specimens. However, during that time their trademark remains unregistered. Moreover, for a busy brand, three years can go by quickly. For these reasons, brands should think strategically of the goods and services described on their trademark applications. Brands should also ensure that applications cover at least some goods and services that they can, with a high degree of certainty, roll out over the next 3-4 years–keeping in mind that it might require a detour of sorts from their core business. Think of these goods and services as safety schools for the brand. Perhaps they are not what drove the creation of the brand in the first place. They may not account for a significant part of the brand's revenues. But they can still play a key role in the protection of the brand's intellectual property. Check Out Our Cannabis Law Services Share Twitter Facebook LinkedIn E-mail Comment Fred Rocafort Fred leads Harris Sliwoski’s intellectual property practice and is the coordinator of the firm’s international team. Much of Fred’s practice consists of helping cannabis businesses protect their brands. He also works with entrepreneurs and companies entering the Web3 space, a new frontier for IP law. Prior to joining Harris Sliwoski, Fred worked overseas for more than a decade, in both government and private sector roles. Fred is a regular contributor to the award-winning China Law Blog and Canna Law Blog. Fred began his career overseas as a U.S. consular officer in Guangzhou, China, where he advocated for fairer treatment of American companies and citizens in China and for stronger intellectual property rights enforcement. After entering the private sector, Fred worked at a Shanghai law firm as a foreign legal advisor and later joined one of the oldest American law firms in China, helping foreign companies navigate the Chinese legal environment. He also led the legal team at a Hong Kong-based brand protection consultancy, spending most of his time out in the field, protecting clients against counterfeiters and fraudsters in Greater China, Southeast Asia and Latin America. In addition to his IP work, as a native Spanish speaker, Fred works closely with different Harris Sliwoski teams on Latin America and Spain matters. Fred also provides advice to cannabis industry participants and other businesses on import and export transactions. Fred is an ardent supporter of FC Barcelona—and would be even in the absence of Catalan forebears who immigrated to Puerto Rico in the mid-1800s. Harris Sliwoski Attorney Read more posts [email protected] Read More Federal law and policy, Intellectual Property/Branding Related Posts September 25, 2026 DEA Enforcement in a Changing Cannabis Landscape: Rescheduling, Hemp, and What Comes Next September 17, 2026 The Supreme Court May Decide if Cannabis-Related Residency Requirements are Unconstitutional September 16, 2026 A $31.8 Million Cannabis-Related Verdict That a Federal Court Wouldn’t Enforce September 15, 2026 Jason Adelstone Moderates Federal Cannabis Policy Discussion at IgniteIt Denver September 11, 2026 Medical Marijuana in Schedule III Survives Its First Major Challenge September 10, 2026 How to Acquire a Colorado Cannabis License September 4, 2026 The Intoxicating Hemp Products Ban Was Delayed a Month. Now What? August 31, 2026 Is the Global Shift to the Right Threatening International Cannabis Reforms? August 28, 2026 Oregon Cannabis Roundup: Fall 2026 August 26, 2026 Five Bills Every California Cannabis Operator Needs to Track in 2026 August 14, 2026 California Cannabis Contracts After Rescheduling: Why Your Contracts Need a Second Look August 4, 2026 DCC License Conversions After Rescheduling: How and When to Split A/M Licenses in California August 3, 2026 The Contradictions of Cannabis Law: From the United States to International Treaties July 28, 2026 What California Operators Must Do After Rescheduling: DEA Registration, License Restructuring, and 280E July 24, 2026 Medical Marijuana Schedule III Litigation: The D.C. Circuit's First Major Test Leave a comment Cancel reply