Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Detroit City Said:
CV SCIENCES, INC. REPORTS FIRST QUARTER 2020 FINANCIAL RESULTS
May 08, 2020
https://ir.cvsciences.com/press-releases/detail/154/cv-sciences-inc-reports-first-quarter-2020-financial
One More Thing The 2.9 Million was received on April 15 and will be somewhat considered an asset for Q2 2020. If I can recall from accounting course days it would be considered and recorded as a liability. So no matter where you lay or sit on it, it is still somewhat unbalanced You understand. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
Wolf Says;
Think Positive... Remember, The company received 2.9 Million USD from the Quasi Socialist Government. It is called an ASSet no Matter which way you sit on it or look at it You understand. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
Wolf Says;
The backbone of the song is basically in the title, Aloha Ke Akua - meaning breath of life and the love of God. Another word also used throughout is kuleana meaning ones' personal responsibility. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
My badddddd. CVSI closed with a 11.44 percent increase after the bell on May 7 You understand. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
Wolf Says; Aloha Ke AkuLA And Namaste
Drum Roll pleaseee....Earnings report before the early bird catches the worm You understand. 10 percent gain before the end of the bell yesterday. Good sign? Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
Wolf Says;
SL And AP
Wolf Says ; like CVSI stock, no pain no gain You understand. The Waiting is the hardest part. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
Thank You Geno. Good to silently hear from You again. Keep the faith my friend. This stock is not for the weak You understand. Hopefully our Hero will show up before 10 years, and at my young age hopefully sooner than later. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
Wolf Says; Carry On Chaps
I’m back ahooooooo and it appears the negative lads take their lunch breaks at the same time You understand. The Wolf will be back when anything develops. My MRI results from a few minutes ago were excellent. No Big C in the Prostate. Coming soon to a theater near you >>> colonoscopy will be the next premier showing in 3D you understand.. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
Wolf Says; Namaste
CANTINE™
Status: A first request for extension of time to file a Statement of Use has been granted.
Status Date: May 01, 2020
Publication Date:
https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87241834&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch
Wolfie Said; ahooooooo ahooooooo ahooooooo
I
Now that is some pork You understand. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
https://www.ourstate.com/parkers-barbecue-in-wilson-nc/
Wolf Says; Poor little piggies
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=155285900
I enjoyed the song. Thank You... Just what the good Doctor ordered You understand. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
Wolf Says;
CANTINE™ usuage or extension 6 month deadline is May 11 You understand. We’ll see if they are in any hurry, if I am not mistaken.
Status: Notice of Allowance (NOA) sent (issued) to the applicant. Applicant must file a Statement of Use or Extension Request within six months of the NOA issuance date.
Status Date: Nov. 12, 2019
Publication Date:
Hot Off The AP Wire No Press intended You understand... Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
Wolf Says;
Mark: NEW HARVEST®
https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88285809&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch
Status: Review prior to publication completed.
Status Date: Apr. 29, 2020
Case dismissed You understand
Time to Wake Up Left Coast ahooooooo
Wolf Says; Chill Out You understand. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
Wolf Lullaby You Understand
Wolf Says; Have Mercy Have Merger you understand. ahooooooo
Inscription
Wolfman Jack
"One More Time"
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/11176976/robert-weston-wolfman_jack
New Trademark Filing
+PLUSCBD
For: Body care and toiletry products, namely, skin moisturizers, balms, lotions, creams, and serums containing naturally occurring amounts of CBD
https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88871216&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch
Status Update! On Wednesday, April 22, 2020, status on the +PLUSCBD trademark changed to NEW APPLICATION FILED.
On Tuesday, April 14, 2020, a U.S. federal trademark registration was filed for +PLUSCBD. The USPTO has given the +PLUSCBD trademark serial number of 88871216. The current federal status of this trademark filing is NEW APPLICATION FILED. The correspondent listed for +PLUSCBD is ROSIE H. KIM of PROCOPIO, CORY, HARGREAVES & SAVITCH LLP, 525 B STREET, SUITE 2200, SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 . The +PLUSCBD trademark is filed in the category of Cosmetics and Cleaning Products . The description provided to the USPTO for +PLUSCBD is Body care and toiletry products, namely, skin moisturizers, balms, lotions, creams, and serums containing naturally occurring amounts of CBD.
AP Said;
AP Wire Said ;
“OH NO, not again”
Wolf Says;
Looking into a new job in the near future. An hour from Virginia Beach. My friend and former Manager is opening up and managing the New campground.
https://koa.com/campgrounds/outer-banks-west/
Thank You. I believe New Harvest hasn’t been published for opposition for various reasons. Waiting for the USPTO to rule that Nuharvest will not be accepted because it will be confusing to the public and CVSI is not in a terrible hurry to get New Harvest registered ®. Take care. I’ll be gone from the board again for awhile. Peace out. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
Wolf Says;
Namaste
Wolf Says; Ciao
New Harvest trade name will be rewarded to CVSI. Nuharvest Trademark will not be approved because of the confusion of their trademark and ours. Nuharvest was trying to capitalize on our trademark that we sent to USPTO 9 months prior to their registration. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
Wolf Says; No Way Jose Ahooooooo
https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88666164&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch
New Harvest Pharms
https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88372162&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch
PRIOR-FILED APPLICATIONS
The filing dates of pending U.S. Application CVSI/New Harvest Serial Nos. 88285809 and Nuharvest 88666164 precede applicant’s filing date. See attached referenced applications. If one or more of the marks in the referenced applications register, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion with the registered mark(s). See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq. Therefore, upon receipt of applicant’s response to this Office action, action on this application may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier-filed referenced applications.
In response to this Office action, applicant may present arguments in support of registration by addressing the issue of the potential conflict between applicant’s mark and the marks in the referenced applications. Applicant’s election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue later if a refusal under Section 2(d) issues.
Nuharvest
https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88666164&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch
Owner Name: MobilEssentials, LLC.
DBA, AKA, Formerly: DBA MOBILESSENTIALS, LLC.
Owner Address:
3905 Circle Drive
Holmen, WISCONSIN UNITED STATES 54636
Legal Entity Type: LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
For: CBD and/or cannabidiol products, cosmetics, Cosmetic preparations for skin care; Beauty balm creams; Skin care preparations, namely, body balm; Non-medicated balms for use on skin and lips; Cosmetics, cosmetic preparations for skin care, beauty balm creams, body balms, non-medicated balms for use on skin and lips, all the foregoing containing hemp extracts derived from Cannabis sativa L. with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis
International Class(es):
New Harvest ™
https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88285809&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch
When I first mentioned trademarks last year I mentioned that the trademark + plus cbd oil was a generic tradename. I kept a close eye out on cbd plus essential oil, to see if it would pass the muster on generic useage and if it did, would it conflict with +plus cbd oil. When we get New Harvest registered, it will most likely be combined with + Plus Cbd Oil. Imo Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
I believe Plus in the trademark will make it unique. Imo
Only where the combination of descriptive terms creates a unitary mark with a unique, incongruous, or otherwise nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods is the combined mark registrable. See In re Colonial Stores, Inc., 394 F.2d 549, 551, 157 USPQ 382, 384 (C.C.P.A. 1968); In re Positec Grp. Ltd., 108 USPQ2d 1161, 1162-63 (TTAB 2013).
Plus cbd oil
https://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn86522004&docId=OOA20200317221949#docIndex=0&page=1
https://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn88399105&docId=OOA20200422104716#docIndex=1&page=1
this Office action.
Issue date: April 22, 2020
The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issue(s) below. 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.
SEARCH RESULTS
The trademark examining attorney searched the USPTO database of registered and pending marks and found no conflicting marks that would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d). 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); TMEP §704.02.
SECTION 2(E)(1) REFUSAL – MERELY DESCRIPTIVE
Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes ingredients of applicant’s goods, namely, they contain cannabidiol and oils that give plants their characteristic odors and are used especially in perfumes and flavorings. Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); see TMEP §§1209.01(b), 1209.03 et seq.
A mark is merely descriptive if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of an applicant’s goods. TMEP §1209.01(b); see, e.g., In re TriVita, Inc., 783 F.3d 872, 874, 114 USPQ2d 1574, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1297, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1421 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Estate of P.D. Beckwith, Inc. v. Comm’r of Patents, 252 U.S. 538, 543 (1920)).
The determination of whether a mark is merely descriptive is made in relation to an applicant’s goods, not in the abstract. DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1254, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re The Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §1209.01(b). “Whether consumers could guess what the product [or service] is from consideration of the mark alone is not the test.” In re Am. Greetings Corp., 226 USPQ 365, 366 (TTAB 1985).
Here, the term “CBD” merely describes an ingredient of the applied-for goods, namely, cannabidiol. Please see the attached definition of “CBD.” The term “ESSENTIAL OILS” merely describes an ingredient of the applied-for goods, namely, oils that give plants their characteristic odors and are used especially in perfumes and flavorings. Please see the attached definition of “essential oil.” The “+” sign in the mark is equivalent to the term “and” and has no trademark significance. Adding punctuation marks to a descriptive term will not ordinarily change the term into a non-descriptive one. In re Mecca Grade Growers, LLC, 125 USPQ2d 1950, 1955 (TTAB 2018); TMEP §1209.03(u); see DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1253-54, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757-58 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Generally, if the individual components of a mark retain their descriptive meaning in relation to the goods, the combination results in a composite mark that is itself descriptive and not registrable. In re Fat Boys Water Sports LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1511, 1516 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re Tower Tech, Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314, 1317-18 (TTAB (2002)); TMEP §1209.03(d); see, e.g., Apollo Med. Extrusion Techs., Inc. v. Med. Extrusion Techs., Inc., 123 USPQ2d 1844, 1851 (TTAB 2017) (holding MEDICAL EXTRUSION TECHNOLOGIES merely descriptive of medical extrusion goods produced by employing medical extrusion technologies); In re Cannon Safe, Inc., 116 USPQ2d 1348, 1351 (TTAB 2015) (holding SMART SERIES merely descriptive of metal gun safes); In re King Koil Licensing Co., 79 USPQ2d 1048, 1052 (TTAB 2006) (holding THE BREATHABLE MATTRESS merely descriptive of beds, mattresses, box springs, and pillows).
Only where the combination of descriptive terms creates a unitary mark with a unique, incongruous, or otherwise nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods is the combined mark registrable. See In re Colonial Stores, Inc., 394 F.2d 549, 551, 157 USPQ 382, 384 (C.C.P.A. 1968); In re Positec Grp. Ltd., 108 USPQ2d 1161, 1162-63 (TTAB 2013).
In this case, both the individual components and the composite result are descriptive of applicant’s goods and do not create a unique, incongruous, or nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods. Specifically, the mark immediately merely describes ingredients of applicant’s goods, namely, they contain cannabidiol and oils that give plants their characteristic odors and are used especially in perfumes and flavorings. Accordingly, registration is refused pursuant to Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1).
In addition to being merely descriptive, the applied-for mark appears to be generic in connection with the identified goods. “A generic mark, being the ‘ultimate in descriptiveness,’ cannot acquire distinctiveness” and thus is not entitled to registration on either the Principal or Supplemental Register under any circumstances. In re La. Fish Fry Prods., Ltd., 797 F.3d 1332, 1336, 116 USPQ2d 1262, 1264 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. Int’l Ass’n of Fire Chiefs, Inc., 782 F.2d 987, 989, 228 USPQ 528, 530 (Fed. Cir. 1986)); see TMEP §§1209.01(c) et seq., 1209.02(a). Therefore, the trademark examining attorney cannot recommend that applicant amend the application to proceed under Trademark Act Section 2(f) or on the Supplemental Register as possible response options to this refusal. See TMEP §1209.01(c).
Applicant should note the following additional grounds for refusal.
CBD-RELATED GOODS – BASED ON EVIDENCE - NO BONA FIDE INTENT TO LAWFULLY USE IN COMMERCE AS OF FILING DATE
Registration is refused because applicant does not have a bona fide intent to lawfully use the applied-for mark in commerce. Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; see TMEP §907.
To qualify for federal trademark registration, the use of a mark in commerce must be lawful. Gray v. Daffy Dan’s Bargaintown, 823 F.2d 522, 526, 3 USPQ2d 1306, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (stating that “[a] valid application cannot be filed at all for registration of a mark without ‘lawful use in commerce’”); TMEP §907; see In re Stellar Int’l, Inc., 159 USPQ 48, 50-51 (TTAB 1968); Coahoma Chemical Co., Inc. v. Smith, 113 USPQ 413 (Com’r Pat. & Trademarks 1957) (concluding that “use of a mark in connection with unlawful shipments in interstate commerce is not use of a mark in commerce which the [Office] may recognize.”). Thus, the goods to which the mark is applied must comply with all applicable federal laws. See In re Brown, 119 USPQ2d 1350, 1351 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re Midwest Tennis & Track Co., 29 USPQ2d 1386, 1386 n.2 (TTAB 1993) (noting that “t is settled that the Trademark Act’s requirement of ‘use in commerce,’ means a ‘lawful use in commerce’”)); In re Pepcom Indus., Inc., 192 USPQ 400, 401 (TTAB 1976); TMEP §907.
Here, the items to which the proposed mark are applied were unlawful under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. §§801-971. The evidence of record indicates that at least some of the items to which the proposed mark may be applied are unlawful under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. §§801-971.
As evidenced by the term “CBD” in the applied-for mark, goods within the scope of the identification bearing the mark contain cannabidiol. Cannabidiol (CBD) is a nonpsychoactive constituent of the cannabis plant. Applicant’s identified goods are broad enough to include products produced from “all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin” (subject to certain exceptions). 21 U.S.C. §802(16)(definition of “marihuana” – commonly referred to as “marijuana”).
In order for an application to have a valid basis that could properly result in a registration, the use of the mark has to be lawful. See In re Pepcom Indus., Inc., 192 USPQ 400, 401 (TTAB 1976) Because use of the applied-for mark in connection with such goods was not lawful as of the filing date, applicant did not have a bona fide intent to lawfully use the applied-for mark in commerce in connection with such goods. See In re JJ206, LLC, 120 USPQ2d 1568, 1569 (TTAB 2016) (“where the identified goods are illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the applicant cannot use its mark in lawful commerce, and ‘it is a legal impossibility’ for the applicant to have the requisite bona fide intent to use the mark.”); see also In re Brown, 119 USPQ2d, 1351-1352; TMEP §907.
On December 20, 2018, the CSA was amended to remove “hemp” from the definition of marijuana and specifically exclude “tetrahydrocannabinols in hemp (as defined under section 297A of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946)” from Schedule I, 21 U.S.C. §812(c)(17). Because the identified goods that feature cannabidiol consist of or include items or activities that are still prohibited under the Controlled Substances Act, namely those containing cannabidiol derived from marijuana, the applicant did not have a valid filing basis for any such items or activities. To the extent the applicant’s goods are derived solely from cannabis plants that meet the current statutory definition of hemp, such goods may be lawful.
Therefore, in order to overcome this refusal, applicant must amend the identification of goods to specify that all cannabidiol-containing items are “solely derived from hemp with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol [THC] concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.”
Applicant’s goods may be clarified or limited, but may not be expanded beyond those originally itemized in the application or as acceptably amended. See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06. Applicant may clarify or limit the identification by inserting qualifying language or deleting items to result in a more specific identification; however, applicant may not substitute different goods or add goods not found or encompassed by those in the original application or as acceptably amended. See TMEP §1402.06(a)-(b). The scope of the goods sets the outer limit for any changes to the identification and is generally determined by the ordinary meaning of the wording in the identification. TMEP §§1402.06(b), 1402.07(a)-(b). Any acceptable changes to the goods will further limit scope, and once goods are deleted, they are not permitted to be reinserted. TMEP §1402.07(e).
APPLICANT SHOULD NOTE THAT AN AMENDMENT TO THE IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS WILL NOT OVERCOME THE FDCA REFUSAL BELOW.
The applicant may also present arguments and evidence against this refusal.
NO BONA FIDE INTENT TO USE IN COMMERCE – CBD SUPPLEMENT GOODS – FDCA – SECTION 1(B)
Registration is also refused under Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; see TMEP §907 because applicant does not have a bona fide intent to lawfully use the applied-for mark in commerce in connection with the identified goods because the goods are or will not be in compliance with the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA).
To qualify for federal trademark registration, the use of a mark in commerce must be lawful. Gray v. Daffy Dan’s Bargaintown, 823 F.2d 522, 526, 3 USPQ2d 1306, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (stating that “[a] valid application cannot be filed at all for registration of a mark without ‘lawful use in commerce’”); TMEP §907; see In re Stellar Int’l, Inc., 159 USPQ 48, 50-51 (TTAB 1968); Coahoma Chemical Co., Inc. v. Smith, 113 USPQ 413 (Com’r Pat. & Trademarks 1957) (concluding that “use of a mark in connection with unlawful shipments in interstate commerce is not use of a mark in commerce which the [Office] may recognize.”). Thus, the goods to which the mark is to be applied must comply with all applicable federal laws. See In re Brown, 119 USPQ2d 1350, 1351 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re Midwest Tennis & Track Co., 29 USPQ2d 1386, 1386 n.2 (TTAB 1993) (noting that “t is settled that the Trademark Act’s requirement of ‘use in commerce,’ means a ‘lawful use in commerce’”)); In re Pepcom Indus., Inc., 192 USPQ 400, 401 (TTAB 1976); TMEP §907.
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) prohibits the introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of a food to which has been added a drug approved under Section 355 of the Act or a biological product licensed under 42 U.S.C. §262. 21 U.S.C. §331(ll); see also 21 U.S.C. §321(ff) (indicating that a dietary supplement is deemed to be a food within the meaning of the FDCA and does not include an article that is approved as a new drug under 21 U.S.C. §355, certified as an antibiotic under 21 U.S.C. §357, or licensed as a biologic under 42 U.S.C. §262).
Cannabidiol (CBD), a chemical constituent of the cannabis plant, was the subject of substantial clinical investigations before it was marketed in foods or as dietary supplements. On June 25, 2018, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first prescription pharmaceutical formulation of plant-derived CBD, Epidiolex®, for the treatment of two rare forms of epilepsy, Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and Dravet syndrome. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) placed Epidiolex® on schedule V of the CSA on September 27, 2018. Nevertheless, marijuana and CBD derived from marijuana remain unlawful. No other cannabis-derived drug products have been approved by the FDA. Under the FDCA, any product intended to have a therapeutic or medical use, and any product (other than a food) that is intended to affect the structure or function of the body of humans or animals, is a drug. 21 U.S.C. § 321(g)(1) An unapproved new drug cannot be distributed or sold in interstate commerce unless it is the subject of an FDA-approved new drug application (NDA) or abbreviated new drug application (ANDA). 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(d) and 355(a), (b), & (j); see also FDA Regulation of Cannabis and Cannabis-Derived Products: Questions and Answers https://www.fda.gov/news-events/public-health-focus/fda-regulation-cannabis-and-cannabis-derived-products-questions-and-answers copy attached.
Applicant’s goods are broad enough to encompass products that consist of, or include, items that are or were prohibited by the FDCA, namely, natural herbal supplements that contain CBD. The term “CBD” in the mark indicates that the goods contain CBD.
It is unlawful to introduce food to which CBD, an “article that is approved as a new drug,” has been added into interstate commerce or to market CBD as, or in, dietary supplements, regardless of whether the substances are hemp-derived. 21 U.S.C. §§321(ff)(3)(B)(ii), 331(d), 355(a); see also 21 U.S.C. §352(f)(1) regarding mislabeled drugs. See also Statement from FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D., on signing of the Agriculture Improvement Act and the agency’s regulation of products containing cannabis and cannabis-derived compounds.
https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm628988.htm copy attached. Therefore, a limitation statement indicating that the CBD included in the applicant’s goods is 2018 Farm Bill Compliant, or derived from hemp containing less than .3% tetrahyrocannabinol (THC) does not obviate this refusal.
In order for an application to have a valid basis that could properly result in a registration, the use of the mark has to be lawful. See In re Pepcom Indus., Inc., 192 USPQ 400, 401 (TTAB 1976) Because introduction of such goods into commerce was not lawful as of the filing date, applicant did not have a bona fide intent to use the applied-for mark in lawful commerce in connection with such goods. See e.g. In re JJ206, LLC, 120 USPQ2d 1568, 1569 (TTAB 2016) (“where the identified goods are illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the applicant cannot use its mark in lawful commerce, and ‘it is a legal impossibility’ for the applicant to have the requisite bona fide intent to use the mark.”); see also In re Brown, 119 USPQ2d, 1351-1352; TMEP §907.
RESPONSE GUIDELINES
New Harvest ™
https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88285809&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch
Status: Approved by the examining attorney for publication but has not yet published for opposition. Although rare, withdrawal of approval prior to publication may occur after final review. The opposition period begins on the date of publication.
Status Date: Apr. 22, 2020
Wolf Says; “CV Sciences has also filed corresponding patent applications that will allow the Company to seek similar patent protection in other key markets throughout the world.”
https://apnews.com/eb0363bcfdd2fc82a701093329ed3813
Early Bird News
“Tuesday afternoon, the U.S. Senate cleared an interim deal to add another $484 billion infusion for its small business aid program, coronavirus testing and hospital support package, with a House vote expected as soon as Thursday. President Donald Trump has already suggested he would sign the bill once it arrives at his desk. The funds add to the $2.2 trillion relief package initially Congress passed in late March.
The additional funding comes as much of the country remains shut inside due to strict social distancing guidelines, which have left many businesses idled. Still, some southern states this week began allowing people to return to public spaces and businesses, with some restrictions,”
I Agree. S-3 to cover all bases you understand. Like Yogi And Wolf
Says;
Can you imagine what 2.9 million dollars in the coffers represents. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
“We ended fiscal 2019 with $9.1 million of total cash compared to $12.7 million at the end of fiscal 2018. Cash used in operations during fiscal 2019 was approximately $2.1 million. Important thing to note is that we spent approximately $3.8 million on our drug development efforts in fiscal '19. In addition, we invested $1.2 million in capital expenditures. Inventory at the end of fiscal 2019 amounted to $10 million compared to $8.6 million at the end of fiscal 2018. Inventory increased for finished goods to support our growth.”
Wolf Says;
With close to 3 million in the bank one would think the pps should increase 10 to 15 cents today. Imo Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
BTW
This is Gr8 News For Gras you understand. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
https://apnews.com/6c633f15d7723152e2547473187c24de
Early Bird News
Pays the rent for the new facility and their payrolls imo. Most of the monies will be forgiven. Imo. Have Mercy Wolf
Ahooooooo
https://d1io3yog0oux5.cloudfront.net/sec/0001510964-20-000031/0001510964-20-000031.pdf
Item 1.01 Entry Into a Material Definitive Agreement.
On April 15, 2020, CV Sciences, Inc. (the "Borrower") applied for a loan from JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as lender, pursuant to the Paycheck Protection Program of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”) as administered by the U.S. Small Business Administration (the "SBA"). On April 17, 2020, the Loan was approved and Borrower received the proceeds from a loan in the amount of $2,906,195 (the “PPP Loan”).
The PPP Loan, which took the form of a promissory note issued by Borrower (the “Promissory Note”) matures on April 15, 2022 and bears interest at a rate of 0.98% per annum. Monthly principal and interest payments, less the amount of any potential forgiveness (discussed below), will commence on November 15, 2020. The Borrower did not provide any collateral or guarantees for the PPP Loan, nor did Borrower pay any facility charge to obtain the PPP Loan. The Promissory Note provides for customary events of default, including, among others, those relating to failure to make payment, bankruptcy, breaches of representations and material adverse effects. Borrower may prepay the principal of the PPP Loan at any time without incurring any prepayment charges.
All or a portion of the Loan may be forgiven by the SBA and lender upon application by the Company beginning 60 days but not later than 120 days after loan approval and upon documentation of expenditures in accordance with the SBA requirements. Under the CARES Act, loan forgiveness is available for the sum of documented payroll costs, covered rent payments, and covered utilities during the eight week period beginning on the date of loan approval. For purposes of the CARES Act, payroll costs exclude compensation of an individual employee in excess of $100,000, prorated annually. Not more than 25% of the forgiven amount may be for non-payroll costs. Forgiveness is reduced if full-time headcount declines, or if salaries and wages for employees with salaries of $100,000 or less annually are reduced by more than 25%. In the event the PPP Loan, or any portion thereof, is forgiven pursuant to the PPP, the amount forgiven is applied to outstanding principal.
The foregoing summary is qualified in its entirety by reference to the Note, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 10.1.
Just one of those days you understand. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
Wolf Says;