Yesterday, the Department of Justice and Drug Enforcement Administration announced that Epidiolex, the newly approved medication by the Food & Drug Administration, is being placed in Schedule V of the Controlled Substances Act, the least restrictive schedule of the CSA. The FDA announced in June that it approved Epidiolex for the treatment of seizures associated with two rare and severe forms of epilepsy, Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and Dravet syndrome, in patients two years of age and older. Epidiolex contains cannabidiol (CBD), a chemical constituent of the cannabis plant. The CBD in Epidiolex is extracted from the cannabis plant and is the first FDA-approved drug to contain a purified extract from the plant. Marijuana and CBD derived from marijuana remain against the law, except for the limited circumstances that it has been determined there is a medically approved benefit via approval by the FDA. In those instances, the drug will be made appropriately available to the public for medical use. See more here:

Posted in cannabis, marijuana, Medical Marijuana | Tagged CBD, DEA, DOJ, FDA, MJ | Comments Off

Narrowing the international class for your alcohol beverage brand, products, or services for which you seek trademark protection is a rather straightforward decision; it comes down to either international class 32 for beer or international class 33 for all other wine and spirits. But what about the description of goods and services? In order to define the scope of your trademark rights, the USPTO requires that you provide a description, or “identification” of the goods and services that the mark will be used on or in connection with. Trademark examiners are not only comparing the similarity of marks, but how the marks are used on the same or similar goods and services within the same or similar channels of trade. Thus, the description is important because the USPTO will use it to decide whether there is a conflict between two marks, or whether the specific goods or services descriptions are different enough to distinguish the two marks and their varying uses. In general, the USPTO has taken the position that all alcoholic beverages are related, and relatedness of products is a major factor in determining whether two trademarks conflict. However, a proper description of goods and services can sometimes differentiate two alcohol beverage marks registered in the same international class. Many trademark applicants wish to obtain registration for goods and services in the broadest sense possible, with the hopes of securing the most protection for their mark. This technique may prove successful for applicants with a completely novel or fanciful mark in an…

Posted in alcohol beverage law, beer, Trade Practice, trademarks | Tagged Ashley, Trademark, uspto | Comments Off