Cannabis Trademarks After Federal Legalization

Home | Canna Law Blog | Cannabis Trademarks After Federal Legalization Table of Contents Toggle What will happen with cannabis trademarks after federal legalization? This question comes up regularly, but unfortunately lacks a clear answer (or even an unclear answer). On the one hand, with cannabis no longer unlawful at the federal level, USPTO will be able to register trademarks for cannabis products. But beyond that, nothing is clear. Whose use is it anyway? The cornerstone of trademark law in the United States is use in commerce. A trademark cannot be registered if it is not used in commerce. In case of a dispute between two parties using the same mark, the prior user will win out, even if the later user registered the mark first. However, use in commerce must be legal. This means that use of trademarks in connection with cannabis products does not constitute use in commerce for federal trademark registration purposes at this moment in time. But on the day federal legalization takes effect, such use will constitute use in commerce under federal trademark law. As you can see, Legalization Day will be the first date of use in commerce for a lot of cannabis trademarks. For most brands, this will not be a problem: In fact, having Legalization Day on their trademark certificates seems like a pretty cool thing. But what happens if a trademark is being used by two different brands? Can the brand that first used the mark claim a prior right? Use in commerce before federal legalization may not count The honest answer to this last question is, frustratingly, we do not know. However, a very relevant precedent suggests that prior users may not have a stronger claim. When examining applications for hemp trademarks, USPTO draws a distinction between use in commerce before the enactment of the 2018 Farm Bill and use in commerce after the bill became law. The fact that hemp is now legal does not "legalize" hemp-related activities pre-Farm Bill. If the same logic is applied, the clock for use in commerce will start ticking at the moment federal legalization begins-–and not a second earlier. This could well lead to situations where the date of first use is exactly the same for identical or similar marks. It is possible that USPTO will anticipate these issues and formulate guidance. Yet, given the nature of the problem, it may not be possible for USPTO to come up with a comprehensive solution. Looking at which applicant used the mark first (even if it was not legal to do so at the time) would offer a practical approach, but has downsides from a public policy standpoint: If activity that was illegal at the time confers benefits on those who carried it out, it may incentivize ongoing and future illegality. Will trademark registrations for non-cannabis products help after federal legalization? Trademark rights are closely linked to specific goods and services. A common misconception is that brands "own" trademarks, but that is not quite right, certainly not to the extent it suggests a brand has exclusive rights over a particular word, phrase, or logo, no matter how it is used. During a recent trip to New York City, I enjoyed a spectacular bagel at Zucker's Bagel and Smoked Fish. If upon return to Seattle I decided to open a bagel shop called Zucker's, I would be infringing on Zucker's federal trademark rights (or more accurately those of BCN Provisions, LLC, the trademark registrant). But if I opened a furniture store called Zucker's, that would almost certainly not constitute an infringement of the Zucker's trademark. By the same token, if a cannabis brand registers a trademark for their apparel merch, their trademark protection will not extend to other products. It follows that a cannabis brand's trademark registration for non-cannabis products will not necessarily give them a leg up when USPTO opens its service window for trademark applications describing cannabis products. This said, USPTO could end up considering registrations for other products if it finds itself before two competing applications for the same mark. If it does, it might also consider the relatedness between cannabis and those other products. There are also court precedents that could bring about similar results (or new precedents might be set). Imagine a scenario in which two brands are using the same trademark. One registered the trademark for tote bags and baseball hats, while the other one registered the same trademark for hemp prerolls. We are not saying this will happen, but would it not make sense for USPTO or a court to give more weight to the second registration? In the end, though, we will just have to wait and see how this plays out. Federal legalization of cannabis might not make all trademarking problems go away In practice, cannabis brands face two major obstacles when it comes to registering their trademarks. One is the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), under which cannabis whose THC content exceeds 0.3% is prohibited (and categorized as marijuana). The second is the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), under which certain cannabis products are unlawful on safety grounds. If legalization encompasses only a lifting of the CSA prohibition, cannabis brands will still be unable to register trademarks that describe products that are unlawful under the FDCA, such as Hemp CBD foods and drinks. So what to do? Given the inherent uncertainty as to what will happen after federal legalization, there is no surefire formula to secure trademarks in anticipation. However, following certain trademarking fundamentals cannot hurt cannabis brands, and in fact could end up providing an important edge. When making branding decisions, brands should not assume that pre-legalization use in commerce will not count for anything (even though that might be the case). At a practical level, they should ensure they are documenting use in commerce. Brands should also consider doubling down on expansions of their trademark protection scope through registrations for ancillary products such as merch, smoker's articles, and training workshops. Such legal use in commerce could end up being an important factor in future treatment of cannabis trademark issues. Brands should also engage in some wargaming regarding possible approaches by USPTO and the courts. For instance, to the extent weight is given to registrations for non-cannabis products, the relatedness of these products to cannabis may come into play. Brands should not neglect these considerations when crafting their business plans. 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 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