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.
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/
Joerg Grasser is the CFO of CV Sciences. He came from Ballast Brewery a Wholly owned subsidiary of Constellation Brands. Before it was acquired and during acquisition. The CFO at Constellation Brands is connected to Joerg, David Klein is now a board member of Canopy Growth. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
Canopy Growth names current Constellation Brands CFO as its new chairman
By Tomi Kilgore
Published: Oct 10, 2019 7:14 a.m. ET
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/canopy-growth-names-current-constellation-brands-cfo-as-its-new-chairman-2019-10-10
Joerg Grasser
Chief Financial Officer (CFO) at CV Sciences
CV SciencesKeller School of Management
Escondido, California
About
20 years hands-on accounting and finance experience, including financial reporting, budgeting, forecasting, and regulatory compliance.
Proven track record recognizing cost savings, implementing process improvements, deploying internal controls, and establishing new policies and procedures.
IPO and M&A experience. Extensive knowledge of SEC and technical accounting.
Experience
CV Sciences
Chief Financial Officer (CFO)
CV Sciences
Dec 2018 – Present11 months
Greater San Diego Area
Ballast Point Brewing & Spirits
Controller
Ballast Point Brewing & Spirits
Jun 2015 – Dec 20183 years 7 months
Greater San Diego Area
Direct all accounting activities including AP, AR, cost accounting, retail, treasury, GL, and fixed assets.
Streamline and improve financial and operational processes and controls.
Created and implemented a 3 day closing schedule, transitioning from a 15+ day close, with accurate and timely financials provided to CEO/CFO on a monthly basis.
Project lead of ERP conversion to Microsoft Dynamics AX. Develop further AX software strategy.
Key financial contributor to cancelled IPO and merger with Constellation Brands.
Responsible for corporate compliance, including income tax, excise tax, property and sales tax.
Managing an accounting team of 11.
Direct all a
https://www.linkedin.com/in/joerggrasse
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dr. J Can you find the agreement between Mona and CVSI and if there are no stipulations, that his shares can be transferred to another entity under the same conditions of amended and approved by CVSI , would that be possible in a C-Corpration? Wolf
Shareholders of corporations may transfer, sell, assign, or gift their shares as they see fit, so long as the transfer complies with any shareholder agreements that have been signed. Not all corporations have shareholder agreements in place, but any corporation with multiple shareholders should have a written agreement regarding the transfer of shares. There are some procedures that should be followed when transferring shares of stock within a corporation and, if followed correctly, the transfer will be both legal and final.
https://legalbeagle.com/6644867-transfer-shares-stock-within-corporation.html
The Company recognized stock-based compensation expense of $9.9 million and $1.0 million in its operating income (loss) for the three months ended March 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively. During the three months ended March 31, 2019, the former President and Chief Executive Officer ("Mona") and the Company entered into a Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”), pursuant 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 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 (RSU's) 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. As a result of the Settlement Agreement, the Company recorded stock-based compensation expense related to the accelerated vesting of the RSU's of $5.1 million and the modification of certain stock options of $2.7 million during the three months ended March 31, 2019.
As of March 31, 2019, total unrecognized compensation cost related to non-vested stock-based compensation arrangements was $6.8 million which is expected to be recognized over a weighted-average period of 1.8 years.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1510964/000151096419000027/cvsi-20190331x10q.htm
Transferable options are nonqualified stock options (NQSOs) that you can give to certain permitted individuals or entities if your company's stock plan allows such transfers. ... The transfer of the vested option is treated as a completed gift for gift-tax purposes.
Transferable Employee Stock Options
https://corporate.findlaw.com/business-operations/transferable-employee-stock-options.html
If Constellation Brands in my opinion wanted to acquire a CBD company such as CVSI, how would they go by doing it? Would they take the same approach as they did with Canopy Growth by acquiring 9.9 percent of the companies shares? Then later taking a larger stake of 38 percent in the case of the CGC scenario? Can they purchase those 9.9 percent shares from Mona? Is that possible? If the deal with Gallo is approved would Constellation reach their threshold of 3.5 x leverage? When the FTC gives Constellation and Gallo the green light, would that be the catalyst for funds needed for a CBD acquisition? Dr. J these are questions the Wolf would like for you to look into you understand. The Wolf is having one of those Columbo moments you understand. Imo Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
Canopy Growth’s future plans include pursuing various product formats in all cannabis channels. Both companies have no plans to sell cannabis products in any market unless it is permissible to do so at all applicable government levels. Canopy Growth remains committed to not entering the U.S. market in any manner that would contravene U.S. federal laws.
Constellation expects to account for its investment under the equity accounting method. As such, the transaction is expected to be accretive to the company’s full year diluted earnings per share in fiscal 2021. In addition, Constellation Brands remains committed to its investment grade rating and therefore, has no plans to engage in mergers, acquisitions or share repurchase activity until the company returns to its 3.5x leverage target, which is expected to occur within 18-24 months of deal closing.
As part of its investment, Constellation is receiving 139.7 million new warrants which are exercisable over the next 3 years. Of those, 88.5 million are exercisable at a price per share of C$50.40, a 43.0 percent premium to Canopy’s VWAP, and 51.3 million are exercisable at the VWAP at the time of exercise. If Constellation were to exercise all existing and new warrants, its ownership would exceed 50 percent.
https://www.cbrands.com/news/articles/constellation-brands-to-invest-5-billion-cad-4-billion-usd-in-canopy-growth-to-establish-transformative-global-position-and-alignment
On 3 April, Constellation and E&J Gallo entered into an asset purchase agreement over the agreed sale of $1.7 billion worth of wine brands. Constellation intends to offload its wine brands priced at US$11 and below sold, including Clos du Bois, Black Box, Estancia, Mark West, Wild Horse, Franciscan, and Ravenswood, along with six winemaking facilities, to E&J Gallo.
Those wineries include Mission Bell, Turner Road Vintners, Clos du Bois and Wild Horse in California, Hogue Cellars in Washington, and Canandaigua in New York.
On 17 April, the companies filed the relevant forms in connection to the sale and submitted them to the US Department of Justice and the US Federal Trade Commission, according to the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvement Act of 1976.
However, on 17 May, both firms received a request for additional information from the US Federal Trade Commission in connection with a review of the transactions submitted.
Referred to as the ‘second request’, this extends the waiting period 30 days after both companies have complied with the request from the trade commission. As a result, Constellation expects that the deal will no longer be completed in the first quarter of its 2020 fiscal year (the three months to 31 May 2019), but rather the second half of the 2019 calendar year.
https://www.thedrinksbusiness.com/2019/05/constellation-brands-and-gallos-1-7bn-deal-delayed/
Wolf’s Constellation Brands Conspiracy Theory: The rest of the story you understand. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
Who is Joerg Grasser? Why did he quickly climb the ladder to become the CFO of CV Sciences. Where did he come from? Ballast Brewery headquartered in San Diego and acquired by Constellation Brands In November 2015. Before the acquisition Joerg Grasser, no relation to self affirmation Gras you understand was hired by Ballast as their Comptroller in June 2015. Five months before Ballast was Acquired by Constellation Brands. Who was the CFO and Vice President of Constellation Brands at the time? David Klein. Two days ago David Klein is now a member of the Board of Directors of Canopy Growth. Before Canopy can infuse their beverages in the USA, they will opt for CBD before THC because the FDA upcoming rulings and the legalization of Hemp is more likely to come to fruition sooner than later you understand. Constellation Brands is in the process of selling some of their wine business to Gallo giving Constellation Brands cash for future acquisitions. What will their next major acquisition and last piece of the Vertical MJ/CBD puzzle be? If they want to enter the CBD retail market quickly that can be distributed to Grocery Stores, Drugstores, Convenient Stores, alongside their Beer, Wines, and Spirits, an acquisition would be the missing piece of the puzzle. The alignment of the stars are now taking place you understand. Imo Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
Joerg Grasser Says;
Joerg Grasser
Chief Financial Officer (CFO) at CV Sciences
CV SciencesKeller School of Management
Escondido, California
About
20 years hands-on accounting and finance experience, including financial reporting, budgeting, forecasting, and regulatory compliance.
Proven track record recognizing cost savings, implementing process improvements, deploying internal controls, and establishing new policies and procedures.
IPO and M&A experience. Extensive knowledge of SEC and technical accounting.
Experience
CV Sciences
Chief Financial Officer (CFO)
CV Sciences
Dec 2018 – Present11 months
Greater San Diego Area
Ballast Point Brewing & Spirits
Controller
Ballast Point Brewing & Spirits
Jun 2015 – Dec 20183 years 7 months
Greater San Diego Area
Direct all accounting activities including AP, AR, cost accounting, retail, treasury, GL, and fixed assets.
Streamline and improve financial and operational processes and controls.
Created and implemented a 3 day closing schedule, transitioning from a 15+ day close, with accurate and timely financials provided to CEO/CFO on a monthly basis.
Project lead of ERP conversion to Microsoft Dynamics AX. Develop further AX software strategy.
Key financial contributor to cancelled IPO and merger with Constellation Brands.
Responsible for corporate compliance, including income tax, excise tax, property and sales tax.
Managing an accounting team of 11.
Direct all a
https://www.linkedin.com/in/joerggrasse
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On November 16, 2015, Constellation Brands, Inc. (“Constellation”) issued a news release, a copy of which release is furnished herewith as Exhibit 99.1 and is incorporated herein by reference, announcing that it has entered into an agreement to acquire all of the issued and outstanding common and preferred stock of Home Brew Mart, Inc., d/b/a/ Ballast Point Brewing & Spirits (“Ballast Point”).
CONSTELLATION BRANDS, INC.
By: /s/ David Klein
David Klein
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
http://services.corporate-ir.net/SEC/Document.Service?id=P3VybD1hSFIwY0RvdkwyRndhUzUwWlc1cmQybDZZWEprTG1OdmJTOWtiM2R1Ykc5aFpDNXdhSEEvWVdOMGFXOXVQVkJFUmlacGNHRm5aVDB4TURVNE1qQXpNaVp6ZFdKemFXUTlOVGM9JnR5cGU9MiZmbj0xMDU4MjAzMi5wZGY=
In the beer world, Constellation Brands’ reputation is relatively straightforward. Beyond its reported $1 billion acquisition of Ballast Point years ago, the company also owns Funky Buddha and acts as the importer for Corona, Modelo, and other Mexican brands.
But the Upstate New York-based company built its foundation off wine and spirits, a segment Constellation has grown somewhat wary of recently. In February, president and COO Bill Newlands announced the company would sell or discontinue as much as 40% of its wine and spirits portfolio, as first reported by Wine Enthusiast. That move was needed for the sake of “optimizing” those categories, focusing on brands with low growth rates and “30%-plus operating margins,” he said.
https://www.goodbeerhunting.com/sightlines/2019/2/25/the-stars-are-realigning-constellation-brands-preps-to-offload-wine-and-spirits-brands-as-ballast-point-struggles
One more add on you missed Dr. J. Gras you understand. That will be the main ingredient for FDA to allow CBD with THC limitations of .3 in USA and .2 in Europe. Manitoba Harvest (Tilray)and New Harvest (; ;) are already prepared for in the upcoming months you understand. Latest development on our New Harvest™
You Said;
Big MJ companies will have to spend some time and money to get into CBD and reach 10% of the market share if they don't make the list once the FDA gives the green light. They are lagging by a year at least.
Here’s a spam from keeping up with the Greg Jones of the Y world you understand. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
Wolf Says;
Three letters the itsy bitsy spider Cob Webber’s Are Afraid of more than a can of bug spray you understand.
CBD play $CVSI on alert just signed distribution with Harris Teeter |
As $WBA Walgreens, $CVS CVS, and $KR Kroger Get Set to Stock CBD Beauty Products, Here’s What You Need to Know $CVSI
https://fortune.com/2019/10/02/cbd-beauty-products-go-mainstream/
CBD-laced personal care products are about to go mainstream. From drugstores (Walgreens, CVS) to grocers (Kroger) and mall stores (Abercrombie & Fitch, American Eagle Outfitters), expect to see the letters CBD on plenty of packaging.
The Wolf has a suggestion to who you can call you understand. Hopefully the day traders of CVSI that are selling will be caught off guard. You are welcome. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
You Said;
I know you like me and don't like Pr thrown out there everyday ,but if we could get just one more legitimate good news sent out today , like now it would knock this stock over 3 dollars a share and fast . anyone know who to call to get this rolling ! it would be nice for some good PR right now !!
OT The Wolf’s daughter is in Woodland Hills, California. Who knows when I’ll be getting that ring you understand. Have some good quality time. The Wolf is investing my daughter’s inheritance you understand. She better hope the CVSI stock is up before the Wolf eats crow. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
Diamond Jim Said;
Going morning Wolfman.- OT interesting start of the day, daughter called, says she is moving back in. 1 to 2 mo needed which is daughter speak for 6 mo min. It's all good, gives me somebody to talk to and help me with all this investing stuff. Now to get a room ready, enjoy the day.
British Invasion It started with the Red Coats and the Beatles in Black Coats and now it’s the CVSI Investors. Geno Jfx has a problem over in UK. Three posts below will explain. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=151518117
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=151518351
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=151519005
Wolf Says;
Gee_wiz They can borrow the Wolf’s shares as long as they lose their assets you understand. Wolf’s two pence. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
Wolf Says;
The problem I see is that they are including CVSI with Medical and MJ Companies. You might want to provide and question that fact with them. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
Here is a thought. If you were trying to sell and make a profit could this be the reason. Have you sold CVSI in the past and made a profit? If not, they have no problem taking your monies along with losses. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
Wolf Says;
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-07/u-k-pot-investors-are-being-put-off-by-this-2002-law
Wolfie Says;
Thanks for the feedback. I’ll do some research to see what I can come up with you understand. Glad it wasn’t only directed at our company. They didn’t make the same typo in the listing. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
Wolf Says;
Their reasoning was known prior to your recent notification. Did you try calling them to why and when their position has changed. When you do please post your results for curious minds you understand. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
Wolf Says;
That letter you sent would have been sent to you last year. How come you are posting it now? It doesn’t appear that you were adding to your position only trying to sell you understand. Do you have a link for your letter? You might want to tell your broker it is CV Sciences Inc. and not Cv Sciences Inc.. Don’t you just hate typos by professional organizations? Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
You Said;
Any UK holders here? I just got this message so looks like I’m here for the long term!
[/quote
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=15151811
Wolf Says;
The Wolf just read your recent post. You have known about your snafu in the past. You haven’t been able to find an alternative solution by Now? Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=143037339
I'm just pissed that I cant deal because I'm in UK. Perfect buying opportunity and looking at real time lots are taking advantage. Bad way to go today but also good to blow some froth off. I predict we will see 52 week high again before end of this week if not tomorrow.
The Wolf called a Giant Eagle in Mentor,
Ohio a Cleveland suburb on August 25. PlusCbd products were on their shelves you understand. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=150748291
Sunday, 08/25/19 05:58:18 PM
Re: Wolf-man jack post# 55848 0
Post # of 58359
CV Sciences hasn’t announced the Giant Eagle account as of yet. If any of you peepers are in the states that they are located and if You can give them a call and if they have a Pharmacy, that is where our products are located. We have confirmation that some of the Cleveland, Ohio locations are caring our products. Tia. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
https://www.gianteagle.com/search?q=plus%20cbd
As of March 2019, Giant Eagle, Inc. had 216 supermarkets (Giant Eagle, Giant Eagle Express, Market District, Market District Express), 202 fuel station/convenience stores under the GetGo banner and 56 Ricker's fuel station/covenience stores
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_Eagle
O'Hara Township, Pennsylvania, United States
Number of locations
474 ( 216 supermarkets, 202 GetGo stores, 56 Ricker's stores )
Area served
Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Maryland, Indiana
If that was the case, and your logic held any weight, then every CEO of a public concern would have to be fired. Here is an example you are well aware of, the itsy bitsy spider Cob web went from $21.32 to 11.55 from August 1 to October 2. After reading most of your posts since you arrived on this board, all you have done is mostly posted negative opinions about CVSI and it’s management. Are you associated with Citron? Are you shorting CVSI? If not, than what you have to offer to this board in my opinion going forward is just as laughable as some or most of my past and present posts you understand. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
You Said;
Not rooting for it, recognizing the sad reality of how management allowed this to go to 1.50 from 6. Hopefully bottom but nothing is ever for sure with this. I have detailed my complaints, wont rehash here.
You are a genius. On August 1, 2018 you made a prediction that came true you understand. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
You Said:
Wednesday, 08/01/18 03:22:33 PM
cvsi will have a pull back which is enevitable. vdrm up 100 percent today very cheap
boat.cvsi is going straight to 30 where it belongs. cvsi revenue last quarter was five million greater than tlry which trades at 32. similar share structure. many, many catalysts
The Wolf is curious to why you were rooting for Two Bits you understand. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
See ya at .50 cents. Awesome job management. Give yourselves some more stock options. Just better have a strike price of a nickel so you make a penny. FAIL
The Wolf does understand you understand. The Wolf is a Pisces and the day falls on the 24th you understand. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
Wolf Says;
Is Pisces lucky in 2019?
You tend to be the bleeding heart of the zodiac and want to see only the best in people, which is usually a beautiful thing. It only becomes complicated when you take too many people on as charity cases. Boundaries are still your best friend in 2019, so don't be afraid to use them, Pisces
George Said;
https://thebeatlesnews.livejournal.com/115747.html
Wolf Says;
D2 has the first Texas Instrument Calculator And spilled Pepsi One on it and only has a two that is not sticking you understand. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
Thanks for the article. Good news from Whole Foods they are going with Topicsls now. The Soap Company appears to not have that product available according to their website. Hopefully we will be able to pick up those stores. The Wolf knows how to pick out the non and negative CVSI stock holders of this company you understand. Who would you guess has the most animosity against the Mona’s on this forum? Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
Mike Said;
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=142570046
Wolf Says; Pacha Soap Company
Find the Topicals
Would a Froth Bomb be considered a Topical?
https://cbd.pachasoap.com/
Thank You Mark. From Brother Brevin at the Y ahooooooo. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
Brevin Says
OT: Popular Grocery Chain Responds to Surging CBD Demand
https://nicinvestors.com/2019/10/02/popular-grocery-chain-responds-to-surging-cbd-demand/
The states newly involved in the product expansion are as follows: Arkansas, Arizona, California, Georgia, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia.
Wolf Says: Is it the additional products from the soap co and topicals from others?
We’re thrilled to roll out topical CBD products in even more stores and to share new, exclusive items from our longstanding supplier partner Pacha Soap Co,” Coleman said in a press release.”
Wisconsin from Cow Farts to Hemp farmers. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
Wolf Says;
Trump Ag secretary: No guarantee small farms will survive
https://www.nbc26.com/news/state/trump-farm-secretary-no-guarantee-small-farms-will-survive
Wolf Said;
Stores By US State
https://m.wholefoodsmarket.com/stores/list/state
Thank You Mark. From Brother Brevin at the Y ahooooooo. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
Brevin Says
OT: Popular Grocery Chain Responds to Surging CBD Demand
https://nicinvestors.com/2019/10/02/popular-grocery-chain-responds-to-surging-cbd-demand/
The states newly involved in the product expansion are as follows: Arkansas, Arizona, California, Georgia, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia.
Wolf Says;
https://wholefoodsmagazine.com/retail-content-library/the-story-of-pluscbd-oil-from-seed-to-shelf/
Space Lady The Wolf made a mistake. Please change to 20.1 Million.
Wolf Says;
BNN Brevin News Network from Y ahooooooo. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
Brother Brevin Says;
CVSI releases CBD beauty products just in time.
Beauty Products Are the New Face of the CBD Craze
https://civicscience.com/beauty-products-are-the-new-face-of-the-cbd-craze/
Illinois taking regulation into their own hands. This is great news for all legit CBD companies and I hope other states follow suit in light of the FDA's footdragging.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/marijuana/illinois/ct-biz-illinois-bill-cbd-product-testing-20191002-a5ilopwgjnad3bbhswu2hwlgl4-story.html
21.1 Million
BNN The Brevin News Network. Wolf Richzer Reporting you understand. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
Brevin Says ;
CVSI starts distribution to 100+ Pick 'n Save stores in Wisconsin.
https://pluscbdoil.com/stores/pick-n-save/
Wolf Says;
http://picknsavefoods.com/
Kroger plans to build gasoline stations at Pick 'n Save supermarkets in Wisconsin
RICK ROMELL | MILWAUKEE JOURNAL SENTINELUpdated 2:50 p.m. EDT Oct. 2, 2017
https://www.jsonline.com/story/money/business/retail/2017/10/02/kroger-plans-build-gasoline-stations-pick-n-save-supermarkets-wisconsin/722820001/
Wolfie Says; Pig Pickin’ in the South. Pick N try to Save you understand. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
What's in your CBD? Buyer beware
SEPTEMBER 30, 2019 / 8:11 AM / CBS NEWS
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbd-cbs-news-tests-cannabidiol-products-for-cbd-thc-and-impurities-dosages/
Wolf Says;
Mark. Thank you for the head and shoulders up You understand. From Brother Brevin at the Y ahooooooo. Have Mercy Wolf ahoooooo
Brevin Said;
“CV Sciences just released their beauty products last week.”
https://www.cosmeticsdesign.com/Article/2019/10/01/Kline-study-throws-light-on-the-huge-potential-of-CBD-beauty#
Wolf Says;
Sleuth, there is always the possibility of flooding in the Wisconsin River Valley. The Wisconsin River is a tributary of the Mississippi River. Does Hemp survive flash floods? Or can they plant around the season when floods could occur?
Sleuth Said;
USDA guidance requirements for hemp farming are due any day. Anyone else
think that CV Sciences has been waiting for these guidelines to maybe buying their own farm? I see Driftless Extracts LLc in February submitted to the SEC a form D to raise 5 million. February was also the submission date for New Harvest.
I can visualize a certified organic hemp farm providing cbd for New Harvest
and fiber to Patagonia.
Who is giddy? Roy Rogers? Getting up on his horse, or CVSI going up in pps? Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
You Said;
You’re giddy. Do this often?
Something the Wolf posted yesterday before opening bell. Itsy bitsy spider closed today at $12.35 and is now down 39.2 percent since its closing on August 1,2019 of $20.32. CVSI Closed today at $1.97 or 50.75 percent since closing at $4.00 on August 1, 2019. Look for the Cob Web to go to $10.00 to $11.00 range before it bottoms out from their squeeze you understand. Imo Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
Wolf Says; Pps Differentiatial
CVSI. August 1, 2020. $4.00
CWBHF. August 1, 2020. $20.32
CVSI. September 30, 2019. $1.97
CWBHF. September 30, 2019. $13.95
Wolfie Says; You will understand you understand. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo
CVSI. Has decreased 50.75 percent since August 1, 2019
CWBHF. Has decreased 31.30 percent since August 1, 2019
Dr. Joong J. Fang Said; CWBHF hasn’t stopped declining. OUCH
CVSI. Doubles at $3.97
CWBHF. Doubles at $27.90
Wolfie Says; Which one is MORE realistic to double first?
Wolfman Jack Said;