We have published a wide variety of trademark information on this trademark blog page. We hope that you find the information useful. However, if you have a trademark legal issue, the pages located on this website are no substitute for competent legal advice. Please send us an email, fill-out our contact form, or give one of our trademark attorneys a call. If you need to register a trademark with the USPTO or have a trademark issue, we can assist!
Trademark Implications: DEA To Reschedule Cannabis
On August 29, 2023, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) made a significant recommendation to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) concerning the status of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). They proposed a shift in its classification from Schedule I to Schedule III. In other words, the DEA is likely to reschedule cannabis as a Schedule III substance. This recommendation followed a review of marijuana by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which was initiated by President Biden in the previous year, 2022. Historically, the DEA has shown a propensity to align with the FDA’s recommendations on such scientific and medical matters, suggesting that this change might likely be adopted.
To understand the significance of this proposed shift to reschedule cannabis, one must comprehend the classification system under the CSA. The Act categorizes substances into five distinct schedules. These classifications are based on criteria like the substance’s medical use, its potential for abuse, and the safety or risk of dependence. Schedule I lists substances deemed to be the most dangerous, signifying a high potential for abuse and no recognized medical use. On the other hand, Schedule V consists of substances that are considered to be the least harmful.
Currently, marijuana is categorized under Schedule I. This classification suggests that it is perceived as having a high potential for abuse, with no acknowledged medical use in treatment in the United States. Consequently, activities related to marijuana, such as its manufacture, distribution, and possession, are predominantly prohibited. The only exceptions are certain federal government-approved research studies.
However, the proposed shift to reschedule cannabis would place marijuana under Schedule III. Substances in this category are seen as having a potential for abuse that is lesser than those in Schedules I and II. They also have a recognized medical use within the country. Recognizing marijuana as a Schedule III substance would consequently acknowledge its medical utility while ensuring it remains under some degree of federal control. It’s noteworthy that, as of 2023, the FDA has voiced its support for this change in classification.
For marijuana to be officially reclassified, there are procedures to follow. The DEA will need to conduct its review of marijuana, taking into consideration factors like the drug’s chemistry, its safety profile, and the available scientific evidence. Given past precedents, such as the case with Marinol in the late 1990s, there’s a high likelihood that the DEA will mirror the FDA’s recommendation. When the FDA had recommended the rescheduling of Marinol in September 1998, it didn’t take long for the DEA to reclassify it to Schedule III by July 1999.
The potential implications of this reclassification are far-reaching. For over five decades, marijuana has been steadfastly placed under Schedule I. The violations associated with marijuana under the CSA have led to criminal sanctions for thousands of individuals. Should marijuana be reclassified to Schedule III, the landscape would change significantly, especially since many states now boast comprehensive medical marijuana programs.
To reschedule cannabis would mean that activities associated with the manufacture, distribution, and possession of medical marijuana would become lawful under the CSA. It would also ensure that state medical marijuana programs align with federal guidelines. Moreover, the FDA would play a more pronounced role in overseeing marijuana products, which may require the agency to enhance its resources and regulatory standards. Financially, marijuana businesses would benefit from the ability to deduct costs associated with selling their product in their federal income tax filings.
Furthermore, those who use medical marijuana would experience eased restrictions in areas like accessing public housing, obtaining visas, purchasing firearms, seeking federal employment, and even in eligibility criteria to serve in the military. Researchers would also benefit, facing fewer regulatory hurdles when studying marijuana. Notably, the DEA would not impose production quota limitations for marijuana anymore.
Lastly, Congress will have a role to play in this potential reclassification. They can choose to keep marijuana in Schedule I or even remove it from the CSA entirely. If the administrative scheduling process advances, Congress might deliberate on allocating additional resources to agencies like the FDA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to ensure the safety and quality of marijuana products in the market.
Rescheduling Cannabis and the Implications for Trademarks
The potential of the DEA to reschedule cannabis is not merely a topic of interest for those invested in its medical or recreational uses; it holds vast implications for the realm of federal trademark law. As it stands, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) staunchly refuses the registration of any trademark associated with goods or services that run afoul of federal law. This principle applies particularly stringently to cannabis, especially when its THC content exceeds the 0.3% threshold, classifying it as marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). This strict classification effectively renders most activities concerning marijuana illicit from a federal perspective, drastically limiting the ability for businesses in the sector to gain trademark protection.
However, as discussions gain traction around possibly rescheduling cannabis to a less restrictive category, this could pave the way for cannabis brands to benefit from broader federal trademark protection. The current conjecture, based on the Health and Human Services’ recommendation, is that cannabis might be slated for reclassification as a Schedule III substance. Such substances are characterized by a lower potential for abuse than their Schedule I and II counterparts and might lead to a moderate physical dependence or a more pronounced psychological one. For context, Schedule III includes products like Tylenol with Codeine® and buprenorphine (Suboxone®). The very presence of the registered trademark symbol (®) alongside these substances is a testament to the fact that they, despite being controlled, can be used legally in certain conditions and thus be associated with registered trademarks.
Interestingly, the CSA’s schedules, all but Schedule I, feature substances with registered trademarks. This suggests that even if cannabis were to be down-scheduled to Schedule II, brands would still be able to secure trademark registrations. For example, OxyContin® stands as an exemplar of a Schedule II substance that boasts a registered trademark.
Nevertheless, even with an eventual rescheduling, certain cannabis brands might still grapple with challenges regarding federal trademark protection. To elucidate, while hemp isn’t a controlled substance, hemp-derived CBD foods are deemed unlawful by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Consequently, under the umbrella of the lawful use requirement, the USPTO would decline the registration of trademarks related to any product or service that breaches federal law, not just those contravening the CSA.
However, for many brands in the cannabis sector, the prospect of rescheduling represents a beacon of hope, potentially allowing them to procure federal trademark protection. As this transition looms on the horizon, it is imperative for these brands to recalibrate their trademark strategies proactively. It is about more than just evaluating whether their offerings might qualify for trademark protection post-rescheduling. Brands should delve deep into trademark fundamentals, ensuring their trademarks steer clear of pitfalls like being generic, geographically descriptive, or bearing too close a resemblance to already registered or previously applied-for trademarks. In doing so, they can capitalize on the potential opportunities that cannabis rescheduling might unfurl.
Do You Sell, Or Are You Thinking About Selling, Cannabis or Hemp Products?
Considering entering the world of cannabis or hemp commerce? Navigating the legal intricacies of trademark protection in this dynamic industry is essential for your brand’s success and security. Reach out to our trademark attorneys today, and let our experienced team guide you in safeguarding your brand and products with robust trademark protection. Your vision deserves the best legal backing, and we’re here to provide it.
Are you launching a new company or developing a new brand or product and need to clear and/or register a trademark? Are you an online seller enrolling in a brand registry program? Are you looking for help with another federal trademark matter? We can assist! Please do not hesitate to give us a call or fill out our contact form. There is absolutely no charge to schedule an initial consultation with one of our trademark attorneys.
NexTrend Legal, LLC, a trademark law firm with offices in Charleston, South Carolina and Jacksonville, Florida. Our trademark attorneys provide federal trademark services to businesses of all sizes, new start-ups, franchisors, inventors, product developers, online sellers and entrepreneurs throughout the US and internationally. Our federal trademark services include, but are not limited to, trademark search, trademark registration, trademark monitoring, trademark office actions, trademark oppositions, trademark renewals and more.
This website is for general information purposes only. The information on these pages should not be considered as legal advice. Testimonials reflect results achieved on behalf of one client, which does not necessarily reflect that similar results will be obtained for other clients. Under the rules of certain jurisdictions, this communication may be considered “Attorney Advertising.”