Major cannabis companies and the renowned figures supporting them are frequently subject to overblown and even absurd allegations by Big Tobacco. In a series of trademark disputes, a tobacco firm argued that the common elements of the rolling paper industry, including pre-rolled cones and organic hemp papers, essentially constituted drug paraphernalia.
The newest argument is that pre-rolled cones, organic hemp papers, and hemp gum are designed for marijuana use—unlike traditional rolling papers, which are sold by some tobacco firms.
As The Boston Globe reported, “Big Tobacco is targeting legal marijuana,” with Altria, the parent company of Marlboro, leading the charge. While certain tobacco corporations are trying to secure their entry into the industry via acquisitions, others are adopting a different approach: undermining rivals. Here are some trademark litigations aimed at the industry that appear to have hidden agendas.
Trademark Confrontations between Big Tobacco and Cannabis
High Times reported an attempted defamation campaign against cannabis consumers, led by Republic Brands—a tobacco company owned by Don Levin, which produces and sells OCB, Top, Job, and Zig Zag rolling papers. The company filed a lawsuit against HBI International, RAW’s parent company, with an injunction issued on Feb. 9. RAW founder Josh Kesselman found himself under intense scrutiny.
RAW faced criticism for claims including the origin of its papers being Alcoy, Spain—famed for its Bambú papers. In Republic’s court documents, they sought to nullify RAW’s trademark, arguing that Republic intended to outlaw cones and other products used for cannabis consumption. Republic’s legal team contended in federal court that “cones were explicitly designed in the 1990s to contain marijuana. They are primarily marketed for this purpose today.” They argued that pre-rolled cones contravened the Controlled Substances Act as they pertained to drug paraphernalia.
The court documents included several social media images of celebrities like Miley Cyrus and Wiz Khalifa using the cones, taken from RAW’s promotional materials. Republic also used RAW’s advertisements with High Times Magazine to argue that the rolling papers are predominantly used for marijuana and should therefore be illegal.
Meanwhile, HBI International filed a counterclaim against Republic. The jury concluded that HBI International breached the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act by falsely claiming that its rolling papers were manufactured in Alcoy. However, the jury sided with HBI’s counterclaim that Republic infringed one of its copyrights and trade dress, awarding HBI over $1 million in lost profits and statutory damages.
The counterclaim alleges that the company has consistently filed lawsuits against smaller competitors to strengthen its market position.
Continuing Trademark Disputes
But RAW isn’t the only company under attack. Last February, Law 360 reported that ITG, the maker of Kool menthol cigarettes, sued Capna Intellectual, trading as Bloom Brands, alleging that Bloom stole Kool’s unique logo.
In this lawsuit, the focus was on the interlocking O’s of the logos. However, one could argue that other logos, such as Dolce & Gabbana’s, bear a resemblance as well.
Court documents report that Bloom filed a trademark application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in 2019, seeking to register a similar mark for e-cigarette and vape sales. The company accused Bloom’s actions of being intentional and carried out with complete disregard, or willful ignorance, of ITG’s rights in the Kool marks, with the purpose of capitalizing on ITG’s reputation and diluting the Kool marks.
Harris-Bricken reports in its Canna Law Blog, “Here, a crucial part of ITG’s argument is that the interlocking ‘O’ design is iconic and distinctive enough to be given wide protection. They argue that a mark incorporating this design on smokable cannabis products could lead consumers to believe that the brands are related or come from the same source.”
Candy and food companies, including Tapatio, have also pursued legal action against cannabis brands that imitate them. Lawsuits of this type often have multiple objectives, with the overarching goal being the elimination of competitors.
CHECK THIS OUT: Legalization of Weed Has Led to Reduced Tobacco Consumption
