Kiva Trademark Dispute Exposes Marijuana Industry’s Federal Trademark Registration Dilemma

Kiva Trademark Dispute Exposes Marijuana Industry’s
Federal Trademark Registration Dilemma   
Kiva Health Brands LLC (Plaintiff) v. Kiva Brands Inc., et al. (Defendant) 
  • Exhibit A for the marijuana trademark registration dilemma

California federal judge rules that defendant marijuana edibles maker cannot challenge plaintiff’s federal trademark registration rights based on prior common law trademark rights “created” in California because marijuana is illegal under federal law.  This decision highlights the marijuana trademark registration dilemma facing marijuana brands.

Marijuana trademark registrationSignificant Decision

U.S. District Court Judge Charles R. Breyer, for the Northern District of California, dismissed two of Defendant Kiva Brands Inc.’s (“Kiva Cannabis”) counterclaims, specifically the second counterclaim, which argues that Plaintiff Kiva Health Brands LLC’s (“Kiva Health”) U.S. trademark registration(s) should be cancelled based upon Kiva Cannabis’ prior common law trademark rights and the third, which argues that Kiva Health infringed Kiva Cannabis’ prior common law trademark rights under the Lanham Act (or federal Trademark Act). Both counterclaims were dismissed because Kiva Cannabis uses its mark for marijuana products and cannabis-infused edibles, which are illegal under federal law, thus it cannot claim and establish legally recognized prior trademark rights as against Kiva Health. 

Judge Charles R. Breyer writes: 

“Although the parties have not identified, and the Court has not seen, any directly relevant authority about the interplay of state marijuana and federal trademark law, the Court is persuaded that the illegality of KBI’s [defendant’s] products under federal law renders KBI unable to challenge KHB’s [plaintiff’s] federal trademark.  Accordingly, as of this stage in the case, KHB [Plaintiff] has demonstrated ownership of the mark nationally, including in California.” 

In other words, although Kiva Cannabis may have used its mark KIVA before Kiva Health’s use of, and U.S. trademark registration for, its mark KIVA, Kiva Cannabis may not rely upon earlier common law (federally unregistered) trademark use because that use was unlawful use in commerce.  The Ninth Circuit has explained that “to hold otherwise would be to put the government in the ‘anomalous position’ of extending the benefits of trademark protection to a seller based upon actions the seller took in violation of that government’s own laws.”

The decision correctly states that trademark priority between conflicting marks ordinarily “comes with earlier use of a mark in commerce.”  However, it further states that such “[u]se in commerce must be lawful useand only lawful use in commerce can give rise to trademark priority between conflicting marks. 

Legal Ramifications

This decision means that makers and sellers of marijuana and/or other cannabis products illegal under federal laws and regulations (which may possibly also include CBD infused edibles) may:

1.  not rely upon earlier common law, federally unregistered, trademark rights as grounds for challenging federal trademark registrations and federal trademark rights, even if the registrant used and/or filed a federal trademark application for the mark after the cannabis company’s trademark use;

2.  be deemed the infringer of third party federal trademark registration rights, even if the cannabis company used the conflicting mark first; and

3.  be required to re-brand even though it may have prior common law trademark rights nationally or within certain geographic markets and regions. 

This decision is a wake up call for those arguing that common law and state trademark rights obviously and adequately protect marijuana brands and trademarks, including “well known” marijuana brands, locally and nationally.

  • To learn about U.S. trademark registration eligibility and strategies for cannabis trademarks, click here.
Summary Background of Case

Plaintiff, Kiva Health, a maker of natural foods and health supplements, sued defendant, Kiva Cannabis, a maker of cannabis-infused chocolates and other edibles, in September 2018 for trademark infringement and thereafter filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and a motion to dismiss two of Kiva Cannabis’ counterclaims.

Kiva Cannabis filed its answer and also filed counterclaims, including a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, a petition to cancel Kiva Health’s U.S. trademark registrations based upon Kiva Cannabis’ earlier common law trademark rights, and trademark infringement, and thereafter filed a cross motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin Kiva Health from using the KIVA mark within California based upon Kiva Cannabis’ claimed earlier common law use rights. 

Recent December 6, 2019 Motions

1.  Kiva Health argues for and files motion in support of partial summary judgment against Kiva Cannabis’ prior common law use defense to trademark infringement and laches and other related equitable defenses.

2.  Kiva Cannabis argues for and files motion in support of summary judgment based on laches.

Kiva Health alleges, among other things, that:

1.  Kiva Cannabis’ use of the KIVA mark for marijuana infused edibles is causing consumer confusion as to the source of the parties’ respective goods, economic damage and injury to Kiva Health’s goodwill and consumers to erroneously believe that Kiva Health’s products are infused with marijuana. In its complaint, Kiva Health alleges that “consumers and prospective consumers have contacted Plaintiff expressing concern and frustration believing that Plaintiff’s food products and supplements, marketed as healthy and eco-friendly, contain cannabis or other regulated substances.” 

Marijuana trademark registration2.  Kiva Cannabis cannot demonstrate “first use” of its mark “in commerce” because its goods are illegal, thus Kiva Health is deemed the senior user of the KIVA mark as between the parties (even though it may have started using KIVA after Kiva Cannabis) and its federal trademark registration(s) for the mark KIVA grants it national trademark rights, including in California. It is, therefore, entitled to nationwide priority of trademark rights, including the entirety of California, for the KIVA trademark for food and related products based upon its U.S. trademark registration rights commencing on September 5, 2013, the date its first U.S. trademark application was filed. How to Register Cannabis Trademarks

3.  Because the entity Kiva Brands Inc. (Kiva Cannabis) came into existence in 2014, and because it cannot show a clear chain of title to the KIVA mark dating back to 2010 via alleged predecessor rights, any trademark rights were created in 2014, which post-dates Kiva Health’s U.S. trademark application filing priority date of September 5, 2013.

Kiva Cannabis asserts, among other things, that:

1.  It is one of the nation’s leading providers of cannabis-infused edible chocolates and confectionery products and that its KIVA brand has obtained national notoriety and received many national awards.

2.  It created common law trademark rights in California, in a state where its products are legal, for its KIVAmark for marijuana infused chocolates and confections in 2010, a date before Kiva Health created any trademark rights for its KIVA mark for foods and supplements. Accordingly, Kiva Health’s issued U.S. trademark registrations (issued as early as 2014) are vulnerable to cancellation based upon Kiva Cannabis’ earlier, a/k/a “senior,” use of the mark KIVA in California. 

3. Notwithstanding trademark priority between the parties, “a reasonably prudent consumer of the parties’ products is not likely to be confused as to whether KBI’s [defendant’s] products originate with KHB [plaintiff], or vice versa.” Confusion is unlikely as to the source of the parties’ respective goods because its [defendant’s] products are infused with cannabis, cannabis products sold in California must display a cannabis symbol on packaging, its [defendant’s] products are sold only in licensed dispensaries and Kiva Health’s products are sold in different channels of trade or outlets, such as on the Amazon.com website and other websites.

4.  The illegality of its products under federal law “would be relevant if Kiva Cannabis were seeking federal trademark registration of the mark KIVA for use on its products,” but is irrelevant to Kiva Cannabis’ having invoked its “common law rights under California law.” Kiva Cannabis contends that Kiva Health’s trademark does not trump the valid common law rights Kiva Cannabis acquired under state law before Kiva Health’s first use and issued federal trademark registrations.

Kiva Cannabis relies upon the trademark principle that a junior user’s federal trademark registration does not invalidate a senior user’s earlier common law trademark rights created in geographic regions where the senior user developed rights prior to the issuance of the junior user’s U.S. trademark registration.

Furthermore, when a junior trademark user secures a federal trademark registration for a mark that conflicts with a senior user’s established common law trademark rights, the junior user may not enter the senior user’s geographic territory with its registered mark if there is a likelihood of consumer confusion as to the source of the parties’ respective products or services. Moreover, the courts have held that a junior user’s federal trademark registration rights can “look like Swiss cheese” throughout the United States with “holes cut out” where other parties’ common law trademark rights existed prior to the issuance of a junior user’s trademark registration.

Timeline of Certain Events and Alleged Facts

2009: Kiva Health name and mark conceived by owners of company.

Early 2010: Kiva Health develops a KIVA logo and a berry powder product (however, KIVA mark apparently not used in connection with sales of foods until 2013).

December 2010: Kiva Cannabis claims first common law use of KIVA mark via a trademark licensee, for marijuana infused edibles in Northern California.

December 2010: Kiva Health incorporated in Nevada.

2011: Kiva Cannabis expands brand and sales into Central and Southern California.

February 13, 2013: Kiva Health starts selling KIVA branded foods at swap meet in Hawaii.

June 2013: Kiva Health starts selling KIVA branded food products online.

2013: Kiva Health alleges continuous sales of KIVA branded food products in California, nationally and internationally.

September 5, 2013: Kiva Health files a U.S. trademark application for the KIVA mark for food products, claiming a date of first use of the mark for foods as February 15, 2013 (Recent motions filed by Kiva Health lists the date of first use of mark as June 10, 2013, however).

April 15, 2014: Kiva Health’s first KIVA trademark registration issues for food products.

September 5, 2014: Kiva Brands Inc. (Kiva Cannabis) Delaware corporation created and does business under Kiva Confections (Kiva Health argues that Kiva Cannabis’ trademark rights in the KIVA mark was created in 2014, only when Kiva Brands Inc. was created and alternatively that Kiva Cannabis cannot establish a valid chain of title back to the alleged 2010 date of first use via former trademark licensee(s)).

Early 2015: Kiva Cannabis expands its brand and sales into Arizona, Nevada, Illinois, Hawaii and Michigan.

June 2015: Kiva Health learns of Kiva Cannabis and its use of KIVA name for marijuana-infused chocolates/edibles.

September 2015/December 2016: Kiva Health secures two additional U.S. trademark registrations for the KIVA mark for additional foods, including candies, and cosmetic and personal care products.

Early 2017: Kiva Health begins receiving queries from customers who were confusing Kiva Health’s KIVA brand with products produced by Kiva Cannabis.

May 2018: Those queries increase and Kiva Health sends cease and desist letter to Kiva Cannabis. (Kiva Cannabis is arguing that Kiva Health’s nearly three year delay is unreasonable and amounts to laches and, combined with other facts and defenses, including that cannabis goods are highly regulated products, including packaging regulations, the parties’ respective goods travel in different channels of trade (i.e., licensed marijuana dispensaries vs. non-dispensary channels, and Kiva Cannabis, having relied on Kiva Health’s inaction, has become one of the leading cannabis companies in the U.S. and would suffer substantial harm, the case should be dismissed.)

September 2018: Kiva Health files this lawsuit against Kiva Cannabis.

December 2018: Kiva Cannabis secures a California trademark registration for its KIVA mark, claiming a date of first use as December 1, 2010.

May 2019: Kiva Cannabis secures U.S. trademark registration for KIVA mark for providing information services that includes information in the fields of medical marijuana and medical benefits of cannabis (Kiva Health argues that Kiva Cannabis makes false statements to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office about its illegal activities, thus its registration is vulnerable to challenge).

2019: Interestingly, Kiva Cannabis expands KIVA branded marijuana-infused products to include Thanksgiving turkey gravy.

Marijuana trademark registration

Plot a course for “smooth sailing”

Conclusion  – Marijuana Trademark Registration Dilemma 

This decision highlights the need for cannabis companies to strategically protect and seek federal trademark registration protection, when possible, for trademarks for legal products and services in an effort to “preserve” future federal trademark registration protection and rights for “related” products and services that currently violate federal laws and regulations but may become legal in the future. 

Read “Update 1” regarding Kiva case here.

To learn about how to register cannabis trademarks and U.S. trademark registration eligibility and strategies click here.

Key: marijuana trademark registration Key: marijuana trademark registration

Podcast 10: How to Protect Cannabis Trademarks (Marijuana, Hemp & CBD)

U.S. TM Registration for Cannabis, Marijuana, Hemp & CBD Marks and 
Other Intellectual Property Protections for Cannabis Businesses
Podcast Episode Begins as :45s

How to Protect Cannabis Trademarks.  With the recent exception of certain hemp-based products and services, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) does not grant trademark registrations for marks for  marijuana/cannabis products and services that “touch” the plant because use of trademarks must be lawful under federal law for federal trademark registration eligibility.How to Protect Cannabis Trademarks

Brand owners may, however, secure federal trademark registration for marks for cannabis-related activities that are legal and arguably also preserve trademark rights for future geographic and product and service expansion under the same registered mark for “related” goods and services that are unlawful as of the trademark application filing date, but later become lawful, including Cannabidiol (CBD) infused foods and marijuana itself.

Marijuana vs. Hemp – What’s the Difference?

  • Marijuana is currently listed as an illegal Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) due to its high potential for abuse attributable to the psychoactive effects of delta-9- tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). how to protect cannabis marks
  • Hemp has historically been grown for its strong fibers used for industrial purposes, including for making fabrics and rope. There is a significant difference between marijuana and hemp with respect to THC concentration. While marijuana can reach THC levels of 30%, THC levels in hemp are typically 0.3% or less. Furthermore, CBD is derived primarily from the hemp plant. How to Protect Cannabis Trademarks

2018 Farm Bill Removes Hemp from the Definition of Marijuana

The 2018 Farm Bill changed certain federal laws and regulations concerning the production and marketing of “hemp.”  Those changes included removing hemp from the CSA’s definition of marijuana, which means that hemp and its derivatives, such as CBD, that contain 0.3% or less of THC on a dry-weight basis are no longer considered controlled substances.  That recent change allows brand owners to federally register trademarks for hemp-based products and services that meet the new guidelines. 

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Still Regulates Certain Hemp-Derived Products

However, the 2018 Farm Bill explicitly preserved the FDA authority to regulate certain products containing cannabis or cannabis-derived compounds.  Because CBD is an active ingredient in the FDA-approved drug Epidiolex, FDA regulation does not allow the active ingredient CBD to be introduced lawfully into any foods or dietary substances absent FDA approval.  Thus, not all hemp-derived products that contain 0.3% or less of THC are lawful because some may still violate the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), including human foods, animal foods and nutritional supplements containing hemp-derived CBD.  

USPTO Examination Guide 1-19 for examining cannabis marks states that:

“[r]egistration of marks for foods, beverages, dietary supplements, or pet treats containing CBD will still be refused as unlawful under the FDCA, even if derived from hemp, as such goods may not be introduced lawfully into interstate commerce.” How to Protect Cannabis Trademarks

FDA guidelines indicate that hemp seeds, hemp seed protein powder and hemp seed oil may be used in human foods, as long as they comply with other requirements, since those three ingredients have been generally recognized as being safe by the FDA.

For those companies that fail to comply with FDA requirements… beware that the FDA monitors and investigates the sale of products that violate FDA laws, including CBD products promoted for therapeutic uses and treating diseases. When the FDA detects such violations, it may send warning letters to the violating parties as a first step in the enforcement process.

On December 20, 2018, the then FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D. made the following statement on that point:

We’ll take enforcement action needed to protect public health against companies illegally selling cannabis and cannabis-derived products that can put consumers at risk and are being marketed in violation of the FDA’s authorities. The FDA has sent warning letters in the past to companies illegally selling CBD products that claimed to prevent, diagnose, treat, or cure serious diseases, such as cancer. Some of these products were in further violation of the FD&C Act because they were marketed as dietary supplements or because they involved the addition of CBD to food. How to Protect Cannabis Trademarks

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) also Regulates False &  Misleading Product Claims, including CBD Product Claims

In a recent letter to a company selling CBD products, the FTC send a joint letter with the FDA, and portions of that letter state the following:

  • In addition, it is unlawful under the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 41 et seq., to advertise that a product can prevent, treat, or cure human disease unless you possess competent and reliable scientific evidence, including, when appropriate, well-controlled human clinical studies, substantiating that the claims are true at the time they are made.   More generally, to make or exaggerate such claims, whether directly or indirectly, through the use of a product name, website name, metatags, or other means, without rigorous scientific evidence sufficient to substantiate the claims, violates the FTC Act.                                                                                                                             
  • The FTC is concerned that one or more of the efficacy claims cited above may not be substantiated by competent and reliable scientific evidence.  The FTC strongly urges you to review all claims for your products and ensure that those claims are supported by competent and reliable scientific evidence.  Violations of the FTC Act may result in legal action seeking a Federal District Court injunction or Administrative Cease and Desist Order.  An order also may require that you pay back money to consumers. 
  • You should take prompt action to correct the violations cited in this letter. Failure to promptly correct violations may result in legal action without further notice, including, without limitation, seizure and/or injunction. How to Protect Cannabis Trademarks

Although many companies believe that CBD products have become legal under the 2018 Farm Bill and under certain laws, they still fail to recognize that there are regulatory authorities that still regulate those activities and failure to follow those regulations can result in federal agency legal action.

How to protect cannabis trademarks
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Campus

Federal Trademark Registration Guidelines for Cannabis Marks

Although marijuana products and services (those that “touch the plant”) and certain hemp-based products are currently illegal under federal law, making their associated marks ineligible for federal trademark registration protection, there are still cannabis-related activities that are legal and eligible for federal trademark registration.  Examples of products and services include: foods and supplements featuring hemp seed oil, educational, informational and podcast services about medical marijuana, cannabis and CBD oil, and clothing that feature cannabis-related trademarks.

If a trademark application is filed for goods or services that violate federal laws, including for marijuana products and/or services or certain products that feature CBD, such as foods and nutritional supplements, the USPTO Examiner should refuse the application. Furthermore, filing an “intent-to-use” trademark application cannot obviate that refusal.

What does that mean? It means that filing a trademark application based on an “intent to use” the trademark “in the future” in anticipation of federal law legalizing cannabis still violates current law (the law as of the application filing date), and thus the application should be rejected because the applicant does not and cannot have a “bona fide intent” to use the applied-for mark for a legal purpose.

USPTO Guidelines for Marijuana & Hemp Products-Key Takeaways

How to protect cannabis trademarks
You’ll Need to Navigate this Slippery Slope
  • Trademark registrations for marijuana and marijuana by-products, including CBD oil derived from marijuana, are unavailable.
  • Trademark registrations for certain hemp products are available. If an applicant’s goods are derived from hemp, as defined in the 2018 Farm Bill, the identification of goods must specify that they are derived from hemp and that the products contain less than 0.3% THC. Thus, the scope of the resulting registration will be limited to goods compliant with federal law.
  • Trademark applications covering certain CBD-infused products, including foods, beverages, dietary supplements and pet foods, are still refused, even if derived from hemp, because such goods may not be introduced lawfully into commerce without FDA approval.
  • The USPTO is currently approving trademarks for skin care preparations and cosmetics that feature hemp ingredients, including CBD oil derived from hemp, as long as the application complies with the 2018 Farm Bill and USPTO filing requirements.
  • If a pending application’s filing date is prior to December 20, 2018 (the effective date of the 2018 Farm Bill), the applicant must amend the filing date to a date later than December 20, 2018 before the application may proceed. Once the date has been amended, a new search is conducted for any prior pending confusingly similar marks.
  • Trademark applications for hemp cultivation and production, if allowed, will require proof of authorization and licensure in accordance with a plan approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. How to Protect Cannabis Trademarks

“Likelihood of Consumer Confusion” Standard and Why it Matters

If brand owners secure federal trademark registration protection for marks for legal activities,  those trademark registrations and rights may arguably preserve future geographic and product and service expansion under the same registered mark for “related” goods and/or services that later become lawful, which could include CBD oil-infused foods and marijuana itself.

That is because trademark law protects consumers from “source confusion.”

For example, if a brand owner adopts the trademark N-DuraRun for running shoes, another party may not adopt the same or confusingly similar mark for running pants because consumers would likely be confused as to the source of the running shoes and running pants if offered under the same trademark by different parties. It is not confusion as to what a consumer is buying (“I thought I was buying running shoes, but I mistakenly purchased running pants.”). Rather, it is confusion as to the source of the products (“I purchased EnDuraRun brand running pants because I thought they were made by the company that makes N-DuraRun brand running shoes!”).

A question to ask is whether the average consumer would reasonably believe that the parties’ respective goods or services are of the type that would originate from the same source.  If yes, and if the parties’ respective marks are confusingly similar, there may be a likelihood of consumer confusion as to the source of the parties’ respective goods.

How to protect cannabis trademarks
Let’s plot a course for “smooth sailing”

As an example within the cannabis space, consider a company that provides informational services about medical marijuana. If it secures a federal trademark registration for those services, that registration and rights may arguably preserve the brand owner’s right to use and register the same mark for “related” goods and services, which could include marijuana products if they become legal, because the average consumer would arguably believe that informational services about medical marijuana and medical marijuana would originate from the same source.

As companies prepare for the potential federal legalization of all forms of cannabis, securing federal trademark registration now for brand names for goods and services that are currently legal is vital for protecting company assets, current and future business opportunities and future geographic expansion, and it is possible as long as brand owners understand the current regulatory landscape and the intricacies of trademark law.

Other Forms of Intellectual Property Protection

In addition to trademark and federal trademark registration protection, there are other intellectual property protections available for marijuana, hemp and cannabis businesses, including:

  • State trademark filings. In states that have legalized cannabis, state trademark registrations may be available.
  • Common law trademark rights. Common law (unregistered) trademark rights may be available.
  • Patent protection. Patent protection may be secured for various inventions, including plants, such as new strains of the cannabis plant, and methods of cannabis hydration and lighting.
  • Trade secrets. Trade secrets can protect certain aspects of a business, including formulas, processes or methods, that are not generally known or reasonably ascertainable by others and that can help a business obtain an economic advantage over competitors or customers. To be eligible as trade secrets, however, a business owner must take the necessary steps to legally protect them or they will be lost.
  • Copyrights. Copyright protection may be secured for certain company creative works, including trademark logos (artwork), written materials, photographs and software.

Conclusion

As the laws governing the cannabis industry continue to evolve, including trademark, FDA and banking laws and regulations, all interested parties, including cannabis business owners, law firms and investors, must stay abreast of the rapidly changing legal landscape to maximize business growth opportunities, ensure proper legal and regulatory compliance, and avoid having their businesses go up in smoke.

Music: Special thanks go out to Jelsonic and Jeremy Wray for the fabulous music contained in my podcasts titled “The Returning.”  

  • The music contained in this podcast is only a portion of the original; to hear the full version click here

How to Protect Cannabis Trademarks

Disclaimer: This podcast is not legal advice.  The information contained in this podcast is provided as general information and for educational purposes only, and topics may or may not be updated subsequent to their initial posting.  Full Disclaimer details appear at www.TrademarkTitan.com