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.
Important
She must be impotent you understand. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
Joerg Grasser signed off on it.
Amount or Number of Shares
Employee Stock Option (right to buy)
(1)
10/23/2029
Common Stock
109,000
$ 2.06
D
Altman Elizabeth Ann
10070 BARNES CANYON ROAD SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
X
/s
https://d1io3yog0oux5.cloudfront.net/sec/0001510964-19-000059/0001510964-19-000059.pdf
You Got that right about the non believers of CVSI stock AND in general when you get right to it everything else you understand. Why Can’t We Just Live Together. That’s what the Wolf would want, you understand. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
Wolf Said ;
Maxwell no need to say your sorry you understand. No pain No Gain. Hold or Buy CVSI. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
Wolf Says; Are we home yet? No pun intended you understand. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7634193/Live-pigs-used-crash-test-dummies-killed-China.html
Wolf Said; No need to Clash or Crash you understand. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
Maxwell no need for us to Clash you understand. You can Hold or you can sell CVSI. If I was you and you were me, the Wolf would Say Hold you understand. If you were the whiny type of little piggies on this board the Wolf would Say: Have Mercy Wolf Weeeeeeeee. Grab the Depends Self-Affirmation GRASoiled you understand. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
Maxwell Says;
8-K out...Short term. For auditing and nominating purposes short term you understand. Berry Interesting. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
On October 24, 2019, the Board of Directors of CV Sciences, Inc. (the "Company") appointed Beth Altman as a director of the Company. Pursuant to the Company's Bylaws, Ms. Altman shall hold office until the next election of directors by the stockholders of the Company. It is expected that Ms. Altman will be a member of the Audit Committee and the Nomination and Governance Committee of the Company's Board of Directors.
https://d1io3yog0oux5.cloudfront.net/sec/0001510964-19-000057/0001510964-19-000057.pdf
And the Wolf’s ahooooooopinion you understand. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
Wolf Said:
https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNQ5AxmCx2e1AJvkHbW0OMH6Saczwg%3A1572451312327&source=hp&ei=8LO5XfTqEeOO5wLwo5roDg&q=make+me+smile&gs_ssp=eJzj4tFP1zcsNM1Kjk-PNzdgBAAgiwQN&oq=ma&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-hp.1.0.46i39i275j35i39l2j0i67l5.2017.2860..3768...1.0..0.184.342.0j2....3..0....1.......8..46i362i39i275j35i362i39j46i362i39j0.2EwseUNg3pY
Ms. Altman also served as a board member of the Corporate Directors Forum, a 501(c)(6) nonprofit organization focused on helping directors, and those who support them, build more effective boards through continuous learning and peer networking. She also held a leadership position in the Women Corporate Directors, San Diego Chapter, the world’s largest membership organization and community of today’s preeminent women leaders in business.
Ms. Altman has worked at KPMG since 1993, most recently as an office Managing Partner where she successfully led a team of over 260 professionals and 23 partners, providing an array of assurance, tax and advisory services to public and private companies across all industry sectors. Additionally, Ms. Altman served as the lead audit partner for numerous early-stage, middle market and large global clients in the private and public markets, predominately in the life sciences, consumer markets, and technology sectors.
The new BOD had to have worked with or around Joerg when he was at Ballast. They were both working in San Diego together. Ballast Brewery.
LAS VEGAS, March 21, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- CV Sciences, Inc. (OTCQB:CVSI) (the “Company”, “CV Sciences”, “our”, “us” or “we”), a preeminent supplier and manufacturer of hemp CBD products through its industry-dominating brand, PlusCBD Oil™, announced today the appointment of Joerg Grasser as Chief Financial Officer, effective March 21, 2019.
Mr. Grasser brings to his new role more than 20 years of experience and an extensive background in accounting, finance, financial reporting and operations. He has served as Chief Accounting Officer of CV Sciences since December 2018. Prior to his role at CV Sciences, Mr. Grasser served as Controller of Ballast Point Brewing, a subsidiary of Constellation Brands, Inc. He also held senior finance positions with Sequenom, Inc. and Peregrine Semiconductor Corporation. Mr. Grasser began his career at KPMG LLP providing audit and IT advisory services, advancing to senior audit manager. He holds an MBA from the Keller Graduate School of Management, a BA from University of Regensburg, and is a Certified Public Accountant.
“Joerg’s extensive background in accounting and finance along with his strong leadership skills make him the ideal CFO for CV Sciences as we build upon our leadership talent, capabilities, and systems to support future growth,” said Joseph Dowling, Chief Executive Officer. “In Joerg’s short tenure at the Company, he has been an instrumental addition to our team, driving excellence in our financial reporting and strategic counsel to all of our corporate and financial decisions. We are very pleased to have him accept the additional responsibilities of CFO and we look forward to capitalizing on the rapidly growing opportunity that lies ahead.”
Thank you always good to see you here. I’m loaded and ready for the future. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
Waiting for that investor to take CVSI to the next level you understand. Milli Vanilli faked it better than these dudes. Check out the drummer.
The other day I pushed the button at 2.03 and my funds were not cleared. I waited and added 3530 shares today at 2.25. Now long at 25,030 since April this year.
The only thing the new BOD has in common with Constellation Brands is she works for the same Audit firm you understand. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
Consent of KPMG LLP (filed herewith).
https://www.cbrands.com/investors/reporting
D2 Noticed that someone mentioned the Link I posted about CBD over at the CVSYahoooo board, on this board a few days ago. If you want to share it with them, here is the link. Have Mercy ahooooooo
http://video.foxnews.com/v/6097947941001/
The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly. The Good: No photos of Plus + CBD Oil Products. The Bad: THC is hiding behind CBD. The Ugly: Dr Ayers from San Diego and his bias opinions. Curious to know which Pharma company he is probably receiving a QuidQuo Pro you understand. Imo Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
Wolf Says;
http://video.foxnews.com/v/6097947941001/
Wolf Said;
The milestones may or may not happen. If they do, Mona does not have to divest. Mona is in the drivers seat and he is still a major stockholder. How many board members would it take to vote him back in? How many current board members is Mona aligned with? In five years, how many current shareholders Will be around besides the chill factor and BKK that will give a feces? Imo Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
Wolf Obsevation and Logical opinion. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
If : Mona is prohibited from being an officer or Director for a public company for 5 years
Then: Mona is not vesting for 5 years.
Therefore: Mona could become an officer and/ or Director of CV Sciences in five years and will not Vest within those five years.
If Mona vests his options within the five years, as long as his son is an officer and Director, he will most likely pay the income taxes as well.
Back in June 2017, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed an enforcement action against the company and then-CEO Michael Mona. This action concerned financial reporting irregularities related to an acquisition back in 2013. A year later, CV Sciences announced that there had been a settlement in the action. Without admitting wrongdoing, the company paid $150,000, and Mr. Mona agreed to an order that prohibits him from serving as an officer or director of a public company for five years. Mr. Mona also paid a $50,000 penalty.
https://www.marketwatch.com/press-release/cv-sciences-inc-otcmktscvsi-files-an-8-k-other-events-2019-04-02
On March 31, 2019, CV Sciences, Inc. (the “Company”) and Michael Mona, Jr. (“Mona”), the former President and Chief Executive Officer of CV Sciences, Inc. (the “Company”), entered into a Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”), to which the Company agreed that Mona’s resignation from the Company on January 22, 2019 was for Good Reason (as defined in Mona’s Employment Agreement) and agreed to extend the deadline for Mona’s exercise of his stock options for a period of five (5) years. In exchange, Mona agreed that notwithstanding the terms of his Employment Agreement providing for acceleration of vesting of all stock options and Restricted Stock Units upon a Good Reason resignation, certain of his unvested stock options would not immediately vest, but rather continue to vest if, and only if, certain Company milestones are achieved related to the Company’s drug development efforts. These stock options were issued in July 2016 (6,000,000 options) and March 2017 (5,000,000 options). The Company and Mona also agreed to mutually release all claims arising out of and related to Mona’s resignation and separation from the Company.
CV SCIENCES, INC. TO ANNOUNCE THIRD QUARTER 2019 RESULTS ON NOVEMBER 5, 2019 Tuesday, November 5, 2019
October 23, 2019
https://ir.cvsciences.com/press-releases/detail/137/cv-sciences-inc-to-announce-third-quarter-2019-results-on
All this male cow talk about MJ. Read and reap you understand. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
Aurora Cannabis Is Dumping Its Pot, Which May Be A Sign It’s All Over
Oct 21, 2019,8:49 am
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stephenmcbride1/2019/10/21/aurora-cannabis-is-dumping-its-pot-which-may-be-a-sign-its-all-over/
SAN DIEGO, Oct. 22, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- CV Sciences, Inc. (OTCQB:CVSI) (the “Company”, “CV Sciences”, “our”, “us” or “we”), a preeminent supplier and manufacturer of hemp cannabidiol (CBD) products, today announced the appointment of Dr. Paul Blake to its Board of Directors effective October 21, 2019.
https://ir.cvsciences.com/press-releases/detail/136/cv-sciences-inc-appoints-dr-paul-blake-to-its-board-of
“We are very pleased to have Dr. Blake join our Board of Directors,” said Joseph Dowling, Chief Executive Officer of CV Sciences. “His decades of experience leading pharmaceutical companies will be invaluable to us as we continue to strengthen our industry leadership position in CBD consumer products and drug development.”
Dr. Blake brings with him deep expertise in clinical research, development, and medical affairs within the pharmaceutical industry. He currently serves as Chief Medical Officer at Heron Therapeutics Inc., a commercial-stage biotechnology company focused on improving the lives of patients suffering from pain or cancer by developing best-in-class treatments. At Heron, Dr. Blake is responsible for clinical research, medical affairs and drug safety.
Prior to joining Heron, he served as Chief Medical Officer of BioDelivery Sciences International, and before that he was the Chief Development Officer at Oxford BioMedica, a gene therapy company. His prior positions include Chief Medical Officer and Senior Vice President of Clinical Research and Development of Aeterna Zentaris, Inc., and Senior Vice President and then Executive Vice President of Worldwide Medical and Regulatory Operations at Cephalon, Inc. From 1992 to 1998, he held the position of Senior Vice President and Medical Director, Clinical Research and Development at SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals (now GSK). Prior to that, he worked for ICI Pharmaceuticals (now Astra Zeneca) and G.D. Searle.
Dr. Blake is qualified in medicine from the Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine, London University. He is a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and a Fellow of the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Medicine of the Royal College of Physicians. He is also a Fellow of the American College of Clinical Pharmacology.
Dr. Blake has been involved in the development of several pharmaceutical drugs including: Tenormin, Zestril, Kytril, Relafen, Paxil, Coreg, Havrix, Hycamtin, Famvir, Requip, Avandia, Provigil and Fentora.
Dr. Blake served on the board of Memory Pharmaceutical, Inc., until it was purchased by Roche in 2009 and was a founding board member of Protez Pharmaceuticals, Inc., until it was purchased by Novartis in 2008. He was also a Director of ViaCell, Inc., until its purchase by Perkin Elmer in 2007 and of Oxford BioMedica from 2008 until 2016.
He has also served as a member of the Inter-Company Collaboration for AIDS Drug Development and as a trustee of the Children’s Health Fund.
“I am excited to join CV Sciences’ Board of Directors and to contribute to the Company’s mission of providing the highest-quality CBD products to consumers and patients,” said Dr. Blake. “CV Sciences is a leading pioneer in the CBD space and is uniquely positioned to continue to bring innovative products and novel therapeutics utilizing CBD to market.”
https://ir.cvsciences.com/press-releases/detail/136/cv-sciences-inc-appoints-dr-paul-blake-to-its-board-of
Open the Door Jim. Tomorrow should be another pullback, if I don’t get my strike price, I will pull the trigger at or around my next set point you understand. 8 G’s for 4000 or more. Jmho you understand. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
Wolf Says ;
Wolf Disclaimer: The Wolf needs some help. Going to add to my position you understand. Please talk negative about the stock only. Time to buy low. Hopefully around $1.85 to 1.90 range if possible. The Wolf refuses to post positive DD that I Am ready to share until then you understand. Thank you. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
Wolf Says; ‘We Are On Time’ you understand. Alohaooooooo
CVSI and Mylan Connection. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
The other FDA-approved cannabis-based medicines are Marinol® (Abbvie) and Cesamet® (Mylan Specialty LP), two synthetic forms of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) available in pill form,
https://blogs.plos.org/scicomm/2018/07/05/cbd-is-certainly-a-big-deal/
Cannabis-based FDA-approved medicines are also referred to as medical marijuana but there are at least two important distinctions: 1) Marinol®, Cesamet® and Syndros® are FDA-approved drugs available by prescription while medical marijuana is still illegal federally; and 2) Marinol®, Cesamet® and Syndros® are purified, synthetic THC while medical marijuana contains over 600 chemicals.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DR JOSEPH MAROON
Furthermore, he is on the Board of Directors of Mylan Laboratories, the 3rd largest Generic drug company in the world and is Chairman of their Science and Technology Committee. Dr. Maroon is also Chairman of the Medical advisory board of General Nutrition Centers (GNC).
http://www.josephmaroon.com/biography/
Quote:
Did you know our BOD Dr. Maroon, is also Chairman of the GNC Medical Advisory Board? The seven new products to be released in November would
fit perfectly into the cbd cosmetics line that GNC now offers.
DR JOSEPH MAROON JOINS CV SCIENCES BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Posted on August 29, 2018
http://www.josephmaroon.com/blog/dr-joseph-maroon-joins-cv-sciences-board-directors/
Happy Sweetest Day. Cleveland Rocks CVSI you understand. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
Wolfie Says;
Furthermore, he is on the Board of Directors of Mylan Laboratories, the 3rd largest Generic drug company in the world and is Chairman of their Science and Technology Committee. Dr. Maroon is also Chairman of the Medical advisory board of General Nutrition Centers (GNC).
http://www.josephmaroon.com/biography/
Did you know our BOD Dr. Maroon, is also Chairman of the GNC Medical Advisory Board? The seven new products to be released in November would
fit perfectly into the cbd cosmetics line that GNC now offers.
Already announced in Mariano’s stores. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
https://pluscbdoil.com/stores/marianos-18/
Kroger to carry CBD products at 945 stores
Rollout of hemp-derived CBD topicals under way on West Coast
Jun 11, 2019
The CBD products will be carried at stores in Kroger’s Atlanta, Cincinnati, Columbus, Michigan, Central, Louisville, Delta, Nashville, Mid-Atlantic, Roundy’s (Mariano’s and Pick ‘n Save), Dillons, King Soopers, Fry’s, Fred Meyer, QFC and Smith’s divisions.
https://www.supermarketnews.com/organic-natural/kroger-carry-cbd-products-945-stores
Brevin from CVSY and Mark. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
Mark Said;
100 MORE Plus Stores and Hawiaii [ see y board articles ]
Apology accepted. Gold gummies by CVSI was a great suggestion you understand l. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
Wolf Says;
From Seed To Shelf ™
This is one trademark that will keep CVSI on top of all CBD display shelves you understand. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=86521967&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch
NOTICE OF ALLOWANCE (NOA)
ISSUE DATE: Mar 22, 2016
Serial Number: 86521967
Mark: FROM SEED TO SHELF
Docket/Reference Number: 120416-0023T
No opposition was filed for this published application. The issue date of this NOA establishes the due date for the filing of a Statement of Use (SOU) or a Request for Extension of Time to file a Statement of Use (Extension Request). WARNING: An SOU that meets all legal requirements must be filed before a registration certificate can issue. Please read below for important information regarding the applicant's pending six (6) month deadline.
https://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn86521967&docId=ALW20160322071952#docIndex=25&page=1
Over 38 million AARP members enjoyed reading the September 2019 AARP Bulletin Article On Medical Marijuana And a separate article on CBD. Baby Boomers just got educated you understand. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
Wolf Says; Just read my copy you understand. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
Products with the hemp derivative are widely available, but health benefits are unproven
by Sari Harrar, AARP, September 3, 2019
https://www.aarp.org/health/drugs-supplements/info-2019/cbd-oil-beyond-the-hype.html
https://press.aarp.org/2019-9-4-September-AARP-Bulletin-Marijuana-and-Your-Health
https://videos.aarp.org/detail/video/6083069111001/medical-marijuana:-here%E2%80%99s-what-you-need-to-know
Chill Factor It’s not Management bringing the stock down. More like posters posting negative and unfounded facts you understand. Your reasoning unfounded but just a Wolfs opinion you understand. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
You Said;
Great job management. See you under one buck. Incompetent fail.
Anticipating. .01 if it comes out at .02 all hell will break out you understand. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
https://financerecorder.com/analysts-see-0-01-eps-for-cv-sciences-inc-cvsi-2/
Analysts expect CV Sciences, Inc. (OTCMKTS:CVSI) to report $0.01 EPS on November, 6.They anticipate $0.02 EPS change or 66.67 % from last quarter’s $0.03 EPS. CVSI’s profit would be $838,484 giving it 54.25 P/E if the $0.01 EPS is correct. After having $0.01 EPS previously, CV Sciences, Inc.’s analysts see 0.00 % EPS growth. The stock decreased 4.41% or $0.1 during the last trading session, reaching $2.17. About 860,979 shares traded or 6.32% up from the average. CV Sciences, Inc. (OTCMKTS:CVSI) has 0.00% since October 8, 2018 and is . It has by 0.00% the S&P500.
CV Sciences, Inc. operates as a life science company. The company has market cap of $181.95 million. It operates through two divisions, Specialty Pharmaceuticals and Consumer Products. It currently has negative earnings. The firm focuses on developing and commercializing prescription drugs utilizing synthetic cannabidiol as the active pharmaceutical ingredient.
More notable recent CV Sciences, Inc. (OTCMKTS:CVSI) news were published by: Benzinga.com which released: “CV Sciences Skewing Successfully Thanks To CBD Sales – Benzinga” on March 21, 2019, also Seekingalpha.com with their article: “CV Sciences: A Compelling CBD Investment Opportunity – Seeking Alpha” published on July 16, 2019, Investorplace.com published: “7 Marijuana Penny Stocks to Consider for Those Who Can Handle Risk – Investorplace.com” on August 05, 2019. More interesting news about CV Sciences, Inc. (OTCMKTS:CVSI) were released by: Globenewswire.com and their article: “CV Sciences, Inc. to Announce First Quarter 2019 Results on May 8, 2019 – GlobeNewswire” published on April 30, 2019 as well as Globenewswire.com‘s news article titled: “CV Sciences, Inc. Announces Distribution Partnership With Harris Teeter – GlobeNewswire” with publication date: October 01, 2019.
August 6, 2019
CV Sciences, Inc. (CVSI) came out with quarterly earnings of $0.03 per share, in line with the Zacks Consensus Estimate. This compares to earnings of $0.03 per share a year ago. These figures are adjusted for non-recurring items.
A quarter ago, it was expected that this company would post earnings of $0.02 per share when it actually produced earnings of $0.01, delivering a surprise of -50%.
Over the last four quarters, the company has surpassed consensus EPS estimates just once.
CV Sciences, Inc.Which belongs to the Zacks Medical - Drugs industry, posted revenues of $16.85 million for the quarter ended June 2019, missing the Zacks Consensus Estimate by 3.44%. This compares to year-ago revenues of $12.35 million. The company has topped consensus revenue estimates just once over the last four quarters.
The sustainability of the stock's immediate price movement based on the recently-released numbers and future earnings expectations will mostly depend on management's commentary on the earnings call.
CV Sciences, Inc. Shares have lost about 7.2% since the beginning of the year versus the S&P 500's gain of 13.5%.
From CW registration.This is true for Plus CBD Oil trademarks. Including CANTINE and New Harvest.
SEARCH OF OFFICE’S DATABASE OF MARKS
The trademark examining attorney has searched the Office’s database of registered and pending marks and has found no conflicting marks that would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d). TMEP §704.02; see 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).
This is why it is GOOD NEWS for CW ™
SEARCH OF OFFICE’S DATABASE OF MARKS
The trademark examining attorney has searched the Office’s database of registered and pending marks and has found no conflicting marks that would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d). TMEP §704.02; see 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).
I accept your apology. What you stated is true for all Trademark registrations because of hemp being illegal at the time of registration. CW will not have a problem with their registrations. It will all work out for CV and CW. Plus CBD and Charlotte’s Web are not going to be challenged. CBD + will Not be able to get registered because CBD +.FX ® has a registered trademark and is in the process of finalizing their Trademark CDBFX ™. They are dropping + in their name. The problem for CBD + is the two trademarks filed by CVSI. Take care. Craig
BAD NEWS for Charlotte’s Web Trademark according to GT you understand. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
Wolf Says; It is not bad news, GT is clueless you understand. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
CHARLOTTE'S WEB
A non-final Office action has been sent (issued) to the applicant. This is a letter from the examining attorney requiring additional information and/or making an initial refusal. The applicant must respond to this Office action. To view all documents in this file, click on the Trademark Document Retrieval link at the top of this page.
Status Date: Oct. 03, 2019
https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88329062&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch
https://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn88329062&docId=OOA20191003175330#docIndex=1&page=1
NONFINAL OFFICE ACTION
The USPTO must receive applicant’s response to this letter within six months of the issue date below or the application will be abandoned. Respond using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS). A link to the appropriate TEAS response form appears at the end of this Office action.
Issue date: October 03, 2019
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 OF OFFICE’S DATABASE OF MARKS
The trademark examining attorney has searched the Office’s database of registered and pending marks and has found no conflicting marks that would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d). TMEP §704.02; see 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).
FDCA REFUSAL - BASED ON EVIDENCE – NOT LAWFUL USE IN COMMERCE
CLASS 5 ONLY
Registration is refused for the goods listed in Class 5 because the applied-for mark is not in lawful use in commerce. Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; see TMEP §907. 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.
This refusal issues when “(1) a violation of federal law is indicated by the application record or other evidence, such as when a court or a federal agency responsible for overseeing activity in which the applicant is involved, and which activity is relevant to its application, has issued a finding of noncompliance under the relevant statute or regulation, or (2) when the applicant’s application-relevant activities involve a per se violation of a federal law.” In re Brown, 119 USPQ2d at 1351 (citing Kellogg Co. v. New Generation Foods Inc., 6 USPQ2d 2045, 2047 (TTAB 1988); Santinine Societa v. P.A.B. Produits, 209 USPQ 958, 964 (TTAB 1981)); TMEP §907.
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act prohibits the introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of a food to which has been added a drug or a biological product for which substantial clinical investigations have been instituted and for which the existence of such investigations has been made public. 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 Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act).
Cannabidiol (CBD) is an active ingredient in an FDA-approved drug, Epidiolex®, (see https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm611046.htm copy attached) and is the subject of substantial clinical investigations before it was marketed in foods or as dietary supplements. See FDA Regulation of Cannabis and Cannabis-derived Products: Questions and Answers https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm421168.htm copy attached.
Applicant’s goods are broad enough to encompass products that consist of, or include, items or activities that are or were prohibited by the FDCA, namely, dietary and nutritional supplements comprised of cannabidiol (CBD) derived from hemp.
The attached excerpt from applicant’s website, CWHEMP.COM, plainly indicates that applicant’s identified goods/services include items and/or activities that are prohibited by the FDCA, namely, dietary and nutritional supplements containing CBD and that such goods are currently being marketed, promoted or offered for sale to consumers.
It is unlawful to introduce food containing added CBD into interstate commerce or to market CBD as, or in, dietary supplements, regardless of whether the substances are hemp-derived. See 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.
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) Accordingly, because applicant’s goods consist of or include items or activities that violate federal law, the applied-for mark as used in connection with such goods is not in lawful use in commerce.
Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.
CANNABIS-RELATED GOODS REFUSAL –– BASED ON EVIDENCE – NOT
IN LAWFUL USE IN COMMERCE – BOTH CLASSES
Registration is refused because the applied-for mark was not in lawful use in commerce. Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; see TMEP §907 on the dates of first use in commerce as alleged in the application.
To qualify for federal trademark/service mark 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 evidence of record indicates that at least some of the items or activities to which the proposed mark will be applied are unlawful under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. §§801-971. More specifically, applicant has alleged that its goods as identified in Classes 3 and 5 are comprised of ingredients from Cannabis sativa L with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content of no more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis. This is now the definition of “industrial hemp.” Hemp is a member of the Cannabis sativa family.
On the dates of first use in commerce as alleged in the application, the CSA prohibited, among other things, manufacturing, distributing, dispensing, or possessing certain controlled substances, including marijuana and any material or preparation containing marijuana. 21 U.S.C. §§812, 841(a)(1), 844(a); see also 21 U.S.C. §802(16) (defining “[marijuana]” as “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)).
In this case, the specimen of record, attached excerpt from applicant’s website and the applicant’s identification plainly indicates that applicant’s identified goods/services include items and/or activities that are prohibited by the CSA, namely, that the goods contain ingredients that were derived from hemp.
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). Applicant has alleged its dates of first use in commerce in Class 3 as November 30, 2017 and in Class 5 as September 30, 2018. These dates were before passage of the AMA (2018 Farm Bill) wherein hemp with a THC content of less than 0.3 percent was removed from the definition of marijuana under the CSA. Therefore, at the time of the alleged first use in commerce in both classes, applicant could not lawfully sell the identified goods in interstate commerce.
However, 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 lawfully sold in Interstate commerce.
Therefore, in order to overcome this refusal, applicant must amend the dates of first use in commerce in both classes to a date that is not earlier than December 20, 2018. The applicant may also present arguments and evidence against this refusal.
Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.
MARK IS MERELY DESCRIPTIVE – SECTION 2(E)(1) – BOTH CLASSES
Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes a feature, ingredient or characteristic of applicant’s goods. 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)).
“A mark may be merely descriptive even if it does not describe the ‘full scope and extent’ of the applicant’s goods or services.” In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 1346, 57 USPQ2d 1807, 1812 (Fed. Cir. 2001)); TMEP §1209.01(b). It is enough if a mark describes only one significant function, attribute, or property. 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); see In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d at 1173, 71 USPQ2d at 1371.
In this case the applicant’s mark is CHARLOTTE’S WEB for goods which include cosmetics, beauty balms and creams, skin care preparations, body, skin and lip balms in Class 3 all of which are comprised of hemp with a THC content of not more than 0.3 percent and dietary and nutritional supplements in Class 5 that are likewise derived from hemp with a THC content of less than 0.3 percent.
Charlotte’s Web identifies a particular strain of low THC, high CBD content Cannabis sativa plants. See the attachments from LEAFLY.COM, ALLBUD.COM, WIKIPEDIA.ORG, NEWCANNABISVENTURES.COM, COLORADOPOTGUIDE.COM as well as applicant’s own website, CWHEMP.COM. Applicant’s website indicates that applicant is using extracts from the Charlotte’s Web strain of hemp as a key ingredient or component of the goods.
A term that describes an ingredient of the goods is merely descriptive. TMEP §1209.01(b); see In re TriVita, Inc., 783 F.3d 872, 114 USPQ2d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding NOPALEA merely descriptive of dietary and nutritional supplements containing nopal juice); In re Keebler Co., 479 F.2d 1405, 178 USPQ 155 (C.C.P.A. 1973) (holding RICH ‘N CHIPS merely descriptive of chocolate chip cookies); In re Andes Candies Inc., 478 F.2d 1264, 178 USPQ 156 (C.C.P.A. 1973) (holding CREME DE MENTHE merely descriptive of candy); In re Entenmann’s, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1750 (TTAB 1990) (holding OATNUT merely descriptive of bread containing oats and hazelnuts); Flowers Indus., Inc. v. Interstate Brands Corp., 5 USPQ 2d 1580 (TTAB 1987) (holding HONEY WHEAT merely descriptive of bread containing honey and wheat).
Therefore, the mark in its entirety is merely descriptive of a key component or ingredient use in the goods, namely, extracts derived from the Charlotte’s Web strain of hemp.
SECTION 2(F)/SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTER ADVISORY
If applicant believes applicant’s mark has acquired distinctiveness, that is, it has become a distinctive source indicator for the applied-for goods, applicant may amend the application to assert a claim of acquired distinctiveness under Trademark Act Section 2(f). See 15 U.S.C. §1052(f). The USPTO decides each case on its own merits. See TMEP §1212.06.
To support this claim of acquired distinctiveness, applicant may submit evidence of “advertising expenditures, sales success, length and exclusivity of use, unsolicited media coverage, and consumer studies (linking the name to a source).” In re Change Wind Corp., 123 USPQ2d 1453, 1467 (TTAB 2017) (quoting In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1300, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). A showing of acquired distinctiveness need not consider all of these types of evidence; no single factor is determinative. In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d at 1300, 75 USPQ2d at 1424; see TMEP §§1212.06 et seq. Rather, the determination involves assessing all of the circumstances involving the use of the mark. See In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d at 1300, 75 USPQ2d at 1424 (citing Thompson Med. Co., Inc. v. Pfizer Inc., 753 F.2d 208, 217, 225 USPQ2d 124, 131-32 (2d Cir. 1985)).
Alternatively, applicant may respond to the refusal under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration and/or by amending the application to seek registration on the Supplemental Register. See 15 U.S.C. §1091; 37 C.F.R. §§2.47, 2.75(a); TMEP §§801.02(b), 816. Amending to the Supplemental Register does not preclude applicant from submitting evidence and arguments against the refusal(s). TMEP §816.04.
Applicant is advised that amending the application to Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act or on the Supplemental Register will not overcome a refusal to register under Sections 1 and 45 of the Trademark Act, 15 USC Sections 1051 and 1127, based on use of the mark on unlawful goods.
If applicant responds to the refusal(s), applicant must also respond to the requirement(s) set forth below.
NO SIGNED DECLARATION FILED WITH APPLICATION
The application was unsigned, resulting in the application not being properly verified. See TMEP §804. Applicant must properly sign and therefore verify the application in an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.2(n), 2.33(a)-(b)(1), (c), 2.34(a)(1)(i); TMEP §804.02.
The following statements must be verified: That applicant believes applicant is the owner of the mark; that the mark is in use in commerce and was in use in commerce as of the application filing date; that to the best of the signatory’s knowledge and belief, no other persons, except, if applicable, concurrent users, have the right to use the mark in commerce, either in the identical form or in such near resemblance as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods/services of such other persons, to cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive; that the specimen shows the mark as used on or in connection with the goods or services as of the application filing date; and that the facts set forth in the application are true. 37 C.F.R. §§2.33(b)(1), (c), 2.34(a)(1)(i), 2.59(a). For more information about this, see the Verified statement webpage.
To provide these verified statements. After opening the correct TEAS response form, answer “yes” to wizard question #10, and follow the instructions within the form for signing. In this case, the form will require two signatures: one in the “Declaration Signature” section and one in the “Response Signature” section.
Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action. Although the USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions, emails can be used for informal communications and will be included in the application record. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05.
TEAS PLUS OR TEAS REDUCED FEE (TEAS RF) APPLICANTS – TO MAINTAIN LOWER FEE, ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS MUST BE MET, INCLUDING SUBMITTING DOCUMENTS ONLINE: Applicants who filed their application online using the lower-fee TEAS Plus or TEAS RF application form must (1) file certain documents online using TEAS, including responses to Office actions (see TMEP §§819.02(b), 820.02(b) for a complete list of these documents); (2) maintain a valid e-mail correspondence address; and (3) agree to receive correspondence from the USPTO by e-mail throughout the prosecution of the application. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.22(b), 2.23(b); TMEP §§819, 820. TEAS Plus or TEAS RF applicants who do not meet these requirements must submit an additional processing fee of $125 per class of goods. 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(v), 2.22(c), 2.23(c); TMEP §§819.04, 820.04. However, in certain situations, TEAS Plus or TEAS RF applicants may respond to an Office action by authorizing an examiner’s amendment by telephone or e-mail without incurring this additional fee.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action
/Jeffrey J Look/
Jeffrey J Look
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 108
Phone: 571-272-1652
Email: jeffrey.look@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
Missing the response deadline to this letter will cause the application to abandon. A response or notice of appeal must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period. TEAS and ESTTA maintenance or unforeseen circumstances could affect an applicant’s ability to timely respond.
Responses signed by an unauthorized party are not accepted and can cause the application to abandon. If applicant does not have an attorney, the response must be signed by the individual applicant, all joint applicants, or someone with legal authority to bind a juristic applicant. If applicant has an attorney, the response must be signed by the attorney.
If needed, find contact information for the supervisor of the office or unit listed in the signature block.
Gladys It is GOOD for CV Sciences. Spinning that fact is not working here you understand. You have no clue about Trademark Law you understand. Here is Charlotte’s Web non final on their registration. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
Charlotte’s Web ™
A non-final Office action has been sent (issued) to the applicant. This is a letter from the examining attorney requiring additional information and/or making an initial refusal. The applicant must respond to this Office action. To view all documents in this file, click on the Trademark Document Retrieval link at the top of this page.
Status Date: Oct. 03, 2019
https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88329062&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch
https://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn88329062&docId=OOA20191003175330#docIndex=1&page=1
NONFINAL OFFICE ACTION
The USPTO must receive applicant’s response to this letter within six months of the issue date below or the application will be abandoned. Respond using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS). A link to the appropriate TEAS response form appears at the end of this Office action.
Issue date: October 03, 2019
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 OF OFFICE’S DATABASE OF MARKS
The trademark examining attorney has searched the Office’s database of registered and pending marks and has found no conflicting marks that would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d). TMEP §704.02; see 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).
FDCA REFUSAL - BASED ON EVIDENCE – NOT LAWFUL USE IN COMMERCE
CLASS 5 ONLY
Registration is refused for the goods listed in Class 5 because the applied-for mark is not in lawful use in commerce. Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; see TMEP §907. 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.
This refusal issues when “(1) a violation of federal law is indicated by the application record or other evidence, such as when a court or a federal agency responsible for overseeing activity in which the applicant is involved, and which activity is relevant to its application, has issued a finding of noncompliance under the relevant statute or regulation, or (2) when the applicant’s application-relevant activities involve a per se violation of a federal law.” In re Brown, 119 USPQ2d at 1351 (citing Kellogg Co. v. New Generation Foods Inc., 6 USPQ2d 2045, 2047 (TTAB 1988); Santinine Societa v. P.A.B. Produits, 209 USPQ 958, 964 (TTAB 1981)); TMEP §907.
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act prohibits the introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of a food to which has been added a drug or a biological product for which substantial clinical investigations have been instituted and for which the existence of such investigations has been made public. 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 Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act).
Cannabidiol (CBD) is an active ingredient in an FDA-approved drug, Epidiolex®, (see https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm611046.htm copy attached) and is the subject of substantial clinical investigations before it was marketed in foods or as dietary supplements. See FDA Regulation of Cannabis and Cannabis-derived Products: Questions and Answers https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm421168.htm copy attached.
Applicant’s goods are broad enough to encompass products that consist of, or include, items or activities that are or were prohibited by the FDCA, namely, dietary and nutritional supplements comprised of cannabidiol (CBD) derived from hemp.
The attached excerpt from applicant’s website, CWHEMP.COM, plainly indicates that applicant’s identified goods/services include items and/or activities that are prohibited by the FDCA, namely, dietary and nutritional supplements containing CBD and that such goods are currently being marketed, promoted or offered for sale to consumers.
It is unlawful to introduce food containing added CBD into interstate commerce or to market CBD as, or in, dietary supplements, regardless of whether the substances are hemp-derived. See 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.
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) Accordingly, because applicant’s goods consist of or include items or activities that violate federal law, the applied-for mark as used in connection with such goods is not in lawful use in commerce.
Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.
CANNABIS-RELATED GOODS REFUSAL –– BASED ON EVIDENCE – NOT
IN LAWFUL USE IN COMMERCE – BOTH CLASSES
Registration is refused because the applied-for mark was not in lawful use in commerce. Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; see TMEP §907 on the dates of first use in commerce as alleged in the application.
To qualify for federal trademark/service mark 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 evidence of record indicates that at least some of the items or activities to which the proposed mark will be applied are unlawful under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. §§801-971. More specifically, applicant has alleged that its goods as identified in Classes 3 and 5 are comprised of ingredients from Cannabis sativa L with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content of no more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis. This is now the definition of “industrial hemp.” Hemp is a member of the Cannabis sativa family.
On the dates of first use in commerce as alleged in the application, the CSA prohibited, among other things, manufacturing, distributing, dispensing, or possessing certain controlled substances, including marijuana and any material or preparation containing marijuana. 21 U.S.C. §§812, 841(a)(1), 844(a); see also 21 U.S.C. §802(16) (defining “[marijuana]” as “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)).
In this case, the specimen of record, attached excerpt from applicant’s website and the applicant’s identification plainly indicates that applicant’s identified goods/services include items and/or activities that are prohibited by the CSA, namely, that the goods contain ingredients that were derived from hemp.
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). Applicant has alleged its dates of first use in commerce in Class 3 as November 30, 2017 and in Class 5 as September 30, 2018. These dates were before passage of the AMA (2018 Farm Bill) wherein hemp with a THC content of less than 0.3 percent was removed from the definition of marijuana under the CSA. Therefore, at the time of the alleged first use in commerce in both classes, applicant could not lawfully sell the identified goods in interstate commerce.
However, 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 lawfully sold in Interstate commerce.
Therefore, in order to overcome this refusal, applicant must amend the dates of first use in commerce in both classes to a date that is not earlier than December 20, 2018. The applicant may also present arguments and evidence against this refusal.
Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.
MARK IS MERELY DESCRIPTIVE – SECTION 2(E)(1) – BOTH CLASSES
Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes a feature, ingredient or characteristic of applicant’s goods. 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)).
“A mark may be merely descriptive even if it does not describe the ‘full scope and extent’ of the applicant’s goods or services.” In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 1346, 57 USPQ2d 1807, 1812 (Fed. Cir. 2001)); TMEP §1209.01(b). It is enough if a mark describes only one significant function, attribute, or property. 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); see In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d at 1173, 71 USPQ2d at 1371.
In this case the applicant’s mark is CHARLOTTE’S WEB for goods which include cosmetics, beauty balms and creams, skin care preparations, body, skin and lip balms in Class 3 all of which are comprised of hemp with a THC content of not more than 0.3 percent and dietary and nutritional supplements in Class 5 that are likewise derived from hemp with a THC content of less than 0.3 percent.
Charlotte’s Web identifies a particular strain of low THC, high CBD content Cannabis sativa plants. See the attachments from LEAFLY.COM, ALLBUD.COM, WIKIPEDIA.ORG, NEWCANNABISVENTURES.COM, COLORADOPOTGUIDE.COM as well as applicant’s own website, CWHEMP.COM. Applicant’s website indicates that applicant is using extracts from the Charlotte’s Web strain of hemp as a key ingredient or component of the goods.
A term that describes an ingredient of the goods is merely descriptive. TMEP §1209.01(b); see In re TriVita, Inc., 783 F.3d 872, 114 USPQ2d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding NOPALEA merely descriptive of dietary and nutritional supplements containing nopal juice); In re Keebler Co., 479 F.2d 1405, 178 USPQ 155 (C.C.P.A. 1973) (holding RICH ‘N CHIPS merely descriptive of chocolate chip cookies); In re Andes Candies Inc., 478 F.2d 1264, 178 USPQ 156 (C.C.P.A. 1973) (holding CREME DE MENTHE merely descriptive of candy); In re Entenmann’s, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1750 (TTAB 1990) (holding OATNUT merely descriptive of bread containing oats and hazelnuts); Flowers Indus., Inc. v. Interstate Brands Corp., 5 USPQ 2d 1580 (TTAB 1987) (holding HONEY WHEAT merely descriptive of bread containing honey and wheat).
Therefore, the mark in its entirety is merely descriptive of a key component or ingredient use in the goods, namely, extracts derived from the Charlotte’s Web strain of hemp.
SECTION 2(F)/SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTER ADVISORY
If applicant believes applicant’s mark has acquired distinctiveness, that is, it has become a distinctive source indicator for the applied-for goods, applicant may amend the application to assert a claim of acquired distinctiveness under Trademark Act Section 2(f). See 15 U.S.C. §1052(f). The USPTO decides each case on its own merits. See TMEP §1212.06.
To support this claim of acquired distinctiveness, applicant may submit evidence of “advertising expenditures, sales success, length and exclusivity of use, unsolicited media coverage, and consumer studies (linking the name to a source).” In re Change Wind Corp., 123 USPQ2d 1453, 1467 (TTAB 2017) (quoting In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1300, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). A showing of acquired distinctiveness need not consider all of these types of evidence; no single factor is determinative. In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d at 1300, 75 USPQ2d at 1424; see TMEP §§1212.06 et seq. Rather, the determination involves assessing all of the circumstances involving the use of the mark. See In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d at 1300, 75 USPQ2d at 1424 (citing Thompson Med. Co., Inc. v. Pfizer Inc., 753 F.2d 208, 217, 225 USPQ2d 124, 131-32 (2d Cir. 1985)).
Alternatively, applicant may respond to the refusal under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration and/or by amending the application to seek registration on the Supplemental Register. See 15 U.S.C. §1091; 37 C.F.R. §§2.47, 2.75(a); TMEP §§801.02(b), 816. Amending to the Supplemental Register does not preclude applicant from submitting evidence and arguments against the refusal(s). TMEP §816.04.
Applicant is advised that amending the application to Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act or on the Supplemental Register will not overcome a refusal to register under Sections 1 and 45 of the Trademark Act, 15 USC Sections 1051 and 1127, based on use of the mark on unlawful goods.
If applicant responds to the refusal(s), applicant must also respond to the requirement(s) set forth below.
NO SIGNED DECLARATION FILED WITH APPLICATION
The application was unsigned, resulting in the application not being properly verified. See TMEP §804. Applicant must properly sign and therefore verify the application in an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.2(n), 2.33(a)-(b)(1), (c), 2.34(a)(1)(i); TMEP §804.02.
The following statements must be verified: That applicant believes applicant is the owner of the mark; that the mark is in use in commerce and was in use in commerce as of the application filing date; that to the best of the signatory’s knowledge and belief, no other persons, except, if applicable, concurrent users, have the right to use the mark in commerce, either in the identical form or in such near resemblance as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods/services of such other persons, to cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive; that the specimen shows the mark as used on or in connection with the goods or services as of the application filing date; and that the facts set forth in the application are true. 37 C.F.R. §§2.33(b)(1), (c), 2.34(a)(1)(i), 2.59(a). For more information about this, see the Verified statement webpage.
To provide these verified statements. After opening the correct TEAS response form, answer “yes” to wizard question #10, and follow the instructions within the form for signing. In this case, the form will require two signatures: one in the “Declaration Signature” section and one in the “Response Signature” section.
Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action. Although the USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions, emails can be used for informal communications and will be included in the application record. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05.
TEAS PLUS OR TEAS REDUCED FEE (TEAS RF) APPLICANTS – TO MAINTAIN LOWER FEE, ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS MUST BE MET, INCLUDING SUBMITTING DOCUMENTS ONLINE: Applicants who filed their application online using the lower-fee TEAS Plus or TEAS RF application form must (1) file certain documents online using TEAS, including responses to Office actions (see TMEP §§819.02(b), 820.02(b) for a complete list of these documents); (2) maintain a valid e-mail correspondence address; and (3) agree to receive correspondence from the USPTO by e-mail throughout the prosecution of the application. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.22(b), 2.23(b); TMEP §§819, 820. TEAS Plus or TEAS RF applicants who do not meet these requirements must submit an additional processing fee of $125 per class of goods. 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(v), 2.22(c), 2.23(c); TMEP §§819.04, 820.04. However, in certain situations, TEAS Plus or TEAS RF applicants may respond to an Office action by authorizing an examiner’s amendment by telephone or e-mail without incurring this additional fee.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action
/Jeffrey J Look/
Jeffrey J Look
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 108
Phone: 571-272-1652
Email: jeffrey.look@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
Missing the response deadline to this letter will cause the application to abandon. A response or notice of appeal must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period. TEAS and ESTTA maintenance or unforeseen circumstances could affect an applicant’s ability to timely respond.
Responses signed by an unauthorized party are not accepted and can cause the application to abandon. If applicant does not have an attorney, the response must be signed by the individual applicant, all joint applicants, or someone with legal authority to bind a juristic applicant. If applicant has an attorney, the response must be signed by the attorney.
If needed, find contact information for the supervisor of the office or unit listed in the signature block.
Good news for Plus + CBD Oil Trademark. CBD + received a non-final notice. Two of Plus + CBD Oil trademarks were filled before their registrations. There is one company out of California Plus Products, that is using a ™ after the word Plus on a false use basis. They have not filed for a trademark with USPTO and will have to give up their use of Plus once CVSI receives a Federal Registered ® Trademark. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
Previously registration was refused based on likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act with U.S. Registration No. 5087608. Applicant submitted a consent agreement between applicant and the owner of the cited registration. In consideration of the consent agreement, the refusal to register under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act with U.S. Registration No. 5087608 is WITHDRAWN.
Applicant was also advised of two potential marks which could serve as bars to registration under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, namely, Serial Nos. 86200974 and 86522004. Those applications are still pending as of the date of this Office Action. Therefore, the potential refusal under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act as to the aforementioned applications is CONTINUED AND MAINTAINED.
https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87833575&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch
Plus Products
https://www.newcannabisventures.com/plus-cannabis-infused-products/