Creating further confusion and uncertainty in the hemp derived cannabidiol (CBD) markets, the FDA has determined that the existing regulatory frameworks for food and supplements are not appropriate for CBD. The FDA cited various safety concerns as the impetuous in making this determination.
This is the final post in the blog series. Read part 1 and part 2.
While AK Futures LLC v. Boyd St. Distro, LLC (9th Cir. May 19, 2022) may seem like a golden opportunity for companies in the intoxicating hemp market, it is unlikely to be much of a windfall beyond the near future. Those relying on this decision to provide legitimacy to their business should proceed with extreme caution based on previous responses to loopholes and governmental eagerness to regulate intoxicants such as delta-8. To believe that these products will be held to a lesser standard than state-regulated (and soon enough, federally-regulated) marijuana products would be short-sighted and naïve.
As mentioned in the first post of this series, it is unlikely that AK Futures LLC v. Boyd St. Distro, LLC (9th Cir. May 19, 2022) will be viewed as the conclusive victory that some in the delta-8 THC arena are hoping for. In this post, we will explore what might be accomplished by (or more accurately, what backlash might come from) this and other similar decisions.
Continue Reading That Ninth Circuit Delta-8 Opinion and What’s Followed – It’s Not a Green Light for Intoxicating Hemp, Part 2
The debate surrounding delta-8 THC and the proper regulation of intoxicating hemp products has accelerated greatly over the last several months, fueled by multiple court decisions, federal policy actions, and new state laws. Not least of which is last May’s decision in AK Futures LLC v. Boyd St. Distro, LLC, No. 21-56133, 2022 WL 1574222 (9th Cir. May 19, 2022). This case provides a great deal of clarity for many seeking to enforce trademark protections for hemp products. It is a major win for intoxicating hemp maximalists, and in hindsight, it feels like the start of many that came this summer. However, it would be unwise to see these developments as a final green light to produce and sell delta-8, delta-10, hemp-derived delta-9, and other intoxicating hemp products across the country.
Continue Reading That Ninth Circuit Delta-8 Opinion and What’s Followed – It’s Not a Green Light for Intoxicating Hemp, Part 1
Delta-8 has been the topic of many conversations over the last year in various cannabis circles. Is it legal? How will hemp-derived Delta-8 THC impact the state-legal marijuana industry? How is Delta-8 THC extracted from hemp and in what quantities? Much of this was already covered in a recent webinar hosted by our firm a
On January 15, 2021, the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) published its final rule (the “Final Rule”) regulating the production of industrial hemp under the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (the “2018 Farm Bill”). The Final Rule modifies regulations set forth in the interim final rule published on October 31, 2019 (the “Interim Rule”). The modifications are based on approximately 5,900 public comments submitted to the USDA over three public comment periods.
The Final Rule contains the following key provisions:
Continue Reading USDA Releases Final Rule Regulating Industrial Hemp
On August 20, 2020, the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) published an Interim Final Rule on industrial hemp and hemp derivatives (the “Interim Rule”), which immediately went into effect, to conform DEA regulations with the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (the “2018 Farm Bill”).
As we previously discussed, the 2018 Farm Bill effectively removed industrial hemp from the definition of “marijuana” in the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Additionally, tetrahydrocannabinols contained in industrial hemp, such as Cannabidiol (commonly known as CBD), were also removed from the purview of the CSA.
Continue Reading The DEA’s Interim Final Rule and its Impact on the Industrial Hemp Industry
On May 28, 2019, the United States Department of Agriculture (the “USDA”) and the Office of the General Counsel (the “GC”) issued a legal opinion on the status of hemp following the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill. The opinion confirms: first, hemp must be produced under the 2014 Farm Bill until the USDA creates
Trademark practitioners, hemp producers, and hemp-derived product manufacturers have long struggled with the clash of federal and state law regarding protection of trademarks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Historically, the USPTO has refused registration of marks that include cannabis, hemp, CBD or derived products on the basis that these marks were unable to have lawful use in commerce under existing federal law. These waters became even murkier after the passage of the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018 (known as the 2018 Farm Bill), which removed “hemp” from the list of controlled substances under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). On May 2, 2019, the USPTO issued Examination Guide 1-19, outlining the USPTO’s policies with respect to trademarks including legal CBD and hemp-derived goods and services since passage of the 2018 Farm Bill. This appears to open the door for registration of marks that include legal CBD, hemp or hemp-derived products (such as hemp oil), or services such as the cultivation or production of hemp.
Continue Reading USPTO Issues Guidance on CBD and Hemp Trademarks After the 2018 Farm Bill
The Hemp Farming Act of 2018 (the “Bill”) introduced by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, would provide a much needed stimulus for the United States rural economy. Given the pending risk of a trade war looming over agricultural businesses, the continuing decline in agricultural commodity prices, and the ever-present institutional risks facing producers, one might