CV Sciences Inc (CVSI)

[Wolf-man jack]

Concerning the Plus + CBDOIL ™ Trademark And the Plus CBD OIL ™ Trademark The filing date was before the Farm Bill Act 2018. According to the USPTO document, CV Sciences will have to amend their registration filing date of December 20, 2018. Have Mercy Wolf ahooooooo

https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=86522004&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch

https://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn86522004&docId=OOA20190822115309#docIndex=0&page=1

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) The claimed use of the applied-for mark in connection with such goods and/or services was not in lawful commerce as of the filing date. See In re Brown, 119 USPQ2d, 1351-1352.


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). The goods and/or services identified did not potentially comply with applicable federal laws until that date. Because the identified goods and/or services consist of or include items or activities that are or were prohibited under the Controlled Substances Act, the applicant did not have a valid basis for filing the application. Nevertheless, to the extent the applicant’s goods contain CBD derived from cannabis plants that meet the current statutory definition of hemp, the goods may presently be lawful.


Due to the changed circumstances and the potential lawfulness of certain products and activities that meet the definition of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended (AMA), applicant may request to amend the filing date of the current application to be December 20, 2018. See Examination Guide 1-19 Examination of Marks for Cannabis and Cannabis-Related Goods and Services after Enactment of the 2018 Farm Bill https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Exam%20Guide%201-19.pdf Applicant must specifically state for the record that such a change to the filing date is being authorized and must establish a valid filing basis under 37 C.F.R. §2.34 by satisfying the relevant requirements. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.34 et seq., TMEP §§806 et seq. In the event of such an amendment, the undersigned examining attorney will conduct a new search of the USPTO records for conflicting marks based on the later application filing date. TMEP §§206.01, 1102.03 For instructions on how to satisfy basis requirements online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, please go to the Basis webpage.


In lieu of amending the filing date, applicant may elect to abandon the current application and file a new application with a new fee that will have an application filing date that is later than the enactment of the December 20, 2018 amendments to the AMA. Alternatively, applicant may respond to the stated refusal by submitting evidence and arguments against the refusal.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

PLUS CBD OIL ™ Trademark

https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88051037&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch


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).

SUMMARY OF ISSUES:
Lawful Use Inquiry – Marijuana Related Services
Disclaimer Required
Description Of Mark – Amendment Required

LAWFUL USE INQUIRY – MARIJUANA RELATED SERVICES

Registration may be refused because the applied-for mark was not in lawful use in commerce as of the filing date of the application. Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; see TMEP §907.

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 and/or services 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 applied-for mark, PLUS + CBD OIL, appears to have a connection to cannabis or the cannabis industry because “CBD” is used in the mark. Moreover, the specimen of record, shows that the applicant’s services include providing monthly teleseminars featuring information of cannabidiol (CBD) which is a byproduct of the Cannabis Sativa plant. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to associate the applicant’s with the provision of cannabis.

In the present application, the applicant has applied for the mark “PLUS + CBD OIL”, which as explained above, appears to suggest a connection to cannabis or the cannabis industry. Therefore, because of the potential connection to the cannabis industry, applicant must answer the following questions to permit proper examination of the application. See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §814.

The requested information should include fact sheets, brochures, advertisements, and/or similar materials relating to the goods and/or services. If such materials are not available, applicant must provide a detailed factual description of the goods and/or services. Any information submitted in response to this requirement must clearly and accurately indicate the nature of the goods identified in the application.

In addition, applicant must submit a written statement indicating whether the goods and/or services identified in the application comply with the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. §§801-971. See 37 C.F.R. §2.69; TMEP §907.

The CSA prohibits, among other things, manufacturing, distributing, dispensing, or possessing certain controlled substances, including marijuana and marijuana-based preparations. 21 U.S.C. §§812, 841(a)(1), 844(a); see also 21 U.S.C. §802(16) (defining “[marijuana]”). The CSA also makes it unlawful to sell, offer for sale, or use any facility of interstate commerce to transport drug paraphernalia, i.e., “any equipment, product, or material of any kind which is primarily intended or designed for use in manufacturing, compounding, converting, concealing, producing, processing, preparing, injecting, ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing into the human body a controlled substance, possession of which is unlawful under [the CSA].” 21 U.S.C. §863.

Finally, applicant must provide written responses to the following questions:

Are applicant’s identified services used in connection with obtaining, ordering, delivering, bidding, and/or dispensing any oils, extracts, ingredients or derivatives from the plant Cannabis sativa L (also known as cannabis, marijuana or hemp)?

Do applicant’s identified services involve the sale, provision, and/or possession of marijuana, marijuana-based preparations, or marijuana extracts or derivatives, synthetic marijuana, or any other illegal controlled substances?

Do applicant’s identified services involve the sale, provision, and/or possession of Cannabidiol (CBD), CBD preparations, or CBD extracts or derivatives, or any other illegal controlled substances?

How are the applicant’s services rendered in the cannabis industry?

Do applicant’s identified services facilitate the sale, provision, and/or possession of marijuana, marijuana-based preparations, or marijuana extracts or derivatives, synthetic marijuana, CBD preparations, or CBD extracts or derivatives or any other illegal controlled substances?

Are the applicant’s services lawful pursuant to the Controlled Substances Act?

Are the applicant’s services lawful pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act?

Failure to satisfactorily respond to a requirement for information is a ground for refusing registration. See In re Cheezwhse.com, Inc., 85 USPQ2d 1917, 1919 (TTAB 2008); In re Garden of Eatin’ Inc., 216 USPQ 355, 357 (TTAB 1982); TMEP §814. Please note that merely stating that information about the goods and services is available on applicant’s website is an inappropriate response to the above requirement and is insufficient to make the relevant information properly of record. See In re Planalytics, Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1453, 1457-58 (TTAB 2004). Applicant is advised that, upon consideration of the information provided by applicant in response to the above requirement, registration of the applied-for mark may be refused on the ground that the mark, as used in connection with the identified goods and/or services, is not in lawful use in commerce. Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127.