From: Keeley, Alison
`
`Sent: 8/29/2022 9:30:13 AM
`
`To: TTAB EFiling
`
`CC:
`
`Subject: U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88979768 - UNCLE BUD'S INDUSTRIAL HEMP -
`116242.00015 - EXAMINER BRIEF
`
`*************************************************
`
`Attachment Information:
`
`Count: 3
`
`Files: 2022-08-15_8-54-07.jpg, 2022-08-15_8-54-13.jpg, 88979768.doc
`
`

`

`United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
`
`
`U.S. Application Serial No. 88979768
`
`Mark: UNCLE BUD'S INDUSTRIAL HEMP
`
`Correspondence Address:
` Daniel H. Bliss
` HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC
` 450 WEST FOURTH STREET
` ROYAL OAK, MI 48067
`
`Applicant: CBH International, LLC
`
`Reference/Docket No. 116242.00015
`
`Correspondence Email Address:
` ipdocket@h2law.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXAMINING ATTORNEY’S APPEAL BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
` Applicant has appealed the trademark examining attorney's1 refusal to register the
`
`mark UNCLE BUD'S INDUSTRIAL HEMP NATURE'S ORIGINAL MADE WITH 
`
`CANTATREX + A TRUSTED FAMILY FORMULA (design plus words) for the goods “topical
`
`analgesics; analgesic balms; all of the foregoing containing ingredients naturally occurring in
`
`industrial hemp with a delta-9 tetrahyrocannabinol (THC) concentration of not more than 0.3% on
`
`a dry weight basis” in Class 5, pursuant to Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 
`
`1127, on the ground that applicant does not have a bona fide intent to lawfully use the mark in 
`
`commerce.
`
`FACTS
`
`On July 1, 2019, applicant, CBH International, LLC, filed an intent to use application
`
`pursuant to Section 1(b) of the Trademark Act for the mark UNCLE BUD'S INDUSTRIAL HEMP
`
`NATURE'S ORIGINAL MADE WITH CANTATREX + A TRUSTED FAMILY FORMULA
`
`(design plus words) (hereinafter “UNCLE BUD’S”) for the goods “cosmetics and cleaning 
`
`1 This application was originally assigned to examining attorney Eric Sable, was reassigned to examining attorney
`Leslee Friedman on April 26, 2021, and then to the undersigned examining attorney on August 5, 2022.
`
`

`

`preparations; skincare; skincare products; cosmetic products; tropical pain relief” in Class 3 and 
`
`“pharmaceuticals; hemp powder; hemp capsules; topical analgesics; analgesic balm; topical gel for 
`
`medical and therapeutic treatment of minor aches and pains of muscles and joint” in Class 5.
`
`On June 18, 2020, the examining attorney refused registration pursuant to Sections 1 and 45
`
`of the Trademark Act due to the applicant not having a bona fide intent to lawfully use the mark in
`
`commerce due to the goods not being lawful under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA).
`
`The examining attorney also partially refused registration pursuant to Section 2(d) of the
`
`Trademark Act for the goods in Class 3; required a Disclaimer of the wording “INDUSTRIAL
`
`HEMP”, “ORIGINAL” and “FAMILY FORMULA”; required amendments to the Identification of 
`
`Goods; and required amendments to the Mark Description.
`
`On October 2, 2020, applicant filed a Request to Divide, maintaining only the goods in
`
`Class 5 in the instant application. On December 10, 2020 applicant filed a Response in which
`
`applicant provided arguments against the Sections 1 and 45 refusal based on the FDCA. Applicant
`
`also amended the Identification of Goods, provided a Disclaimer, and amended the Mark
`
`Description. On April 30, 2021, the examining attorney issued an Office Action in which the
`
`Sections 1 and 45 Refusal based on the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act was maintained and
`
`continued. The examining attorney informed applicant that the Section 2(d) Refusal was obviated
`
`and requirements to amend the Identification of Goods, provide a Disclaimer, and amend the Mark
`
`Description were all satisfied.
`
`On October 19, 2021, applicant filed a Response in which applicant provided additional
`
`arguments against the Sections 1 and 45 Lawful Use in Commerce Refusal based on the FDCA.
`
`On October 28, 2021, the examining attorney issued a Final Refusal based on the Sections 1 and 45
`
`Refusal.
`
`

`

`On April 28, 2022, applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration in which applicant made
`
`further arguments regarding the Sections 1 and 45 Lawful Use Refusal, in conjunction with filing
`
`applicant’s Notice of Appeal.  The examining attorney denied reconsideration on May 23, 2022.
`
`On July 20, 2022, applicant filed its brief, which was forwarded to the examining attorney
`
`for statement on the same day.
`
`
`
`
`
`ISSUE
`
`The sole issue on appeal is whether the applicant had a bona fide intent to lawfully use its
`
`mark in commerce on the goods in Class 5, pursuant to Sections 1 and 45 of the Trademark Act,
`
`based on prohibitions in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA).
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLICANT DOES NOT HAVE A BONA FIDE INTENT TO LAWFULLY
`USE THE MARK IN COMMERCE BECAUSE THE GOODS TO WHICH
`THE MARK WILL BE APPLIED ARE UNLAWFUL UNDER THE FOOD,
`DRUG AND COSMETIC ACT
`
`Applicant does not have a bona fide intent to lawfully use its mark, UNCLE BUD’S, in 
`
`commerce for the goods “topical analgesics; analgesic balms; all of the foregoing containing
`
`ingredients naturally occurring in industrial hemp with a delta-9 tetrahyrocannabinol (THC)
`
`concentration of not more than 0.3% on a dry weight basis” in Class 5. Trademark Act Sections 1
`
`and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; see TMEP §907.  Applicant’s goods are a per se violation of the 
`
`Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21 U.S.C.  §321(g)(1) because applicant’s analgesic goods 
`
`are for the cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease and/or are intended to affect the
`
`structure of or any function of the body and contain CBD.
`
`To qualify for federal trademark registration, the use of a mark in commerce must be
`
`lawful. Gray v. Daffy Dan’s Bargaintown, 823 F.2d 522, 526, 3 USPQ2d 1306, 1308 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1987) (stating that “[a] valid application cannot be filed at all for registration of a mark without 
`
`

`

`‘lawful use in commerce’”); TMEP §907; see In re Stellar Int’l, Inc., 159 USPQ 48, 50-51 (TTAB
`
`1968); Coahoma Chemical Co., Inc. v. Smith, 113 USPQ 413 (Com’r Pat. & Trademarks 1957) 
`
`(concluding that “use of a mark in connection with unlawful shipments in interstate commerce is
`
`not use of a mark in commerce which the [Office] may recognize.”). Thus, the goods to which the
`
`mark is applied must comply with all applicable federal laws. See In re Brown, 119 USPQ2d 1350,
`
`1351 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re Midwest Tennis & Track Co., 29 USPQ2d 1386, 1386 n.2 (TTAB
`
`1993) (noting that “[i]t is settled that the Trademark Act’s requirement of ‘use in commerce,’ 
`
`means a ‘lawful use in commerce’”)); In re Pepcom Indus., Inc., 192 USPQ 400, 401 (TTAB
`
`1976); TMEP §907.  
`
`Here, the goods to which the proposed mark are intended to be applied are unlawful under
`
`the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21 U.S.C.  §321(g)(1) because applicant’s goods
`
`include items that are intended for use in the cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease
`
`and/or are intended to affect the structure of or any function of the body.  Specifically, applicant’s 
`
`identification specifies analgesics,2 goods for relieving pain, and indicates that the goods “contain[]
`
`ingredients naturally occurring in industrial hemp with a delta-9 tetrahyrocannabinol (THC)
`
`concentration of not more than 0.3% on a dry weight basis”. CBD is derived from and is naturally
`
`occurring in hemp. See evidence from Healthline.com, attached to June 18, 2020 Office Action,
`
`page 82 in TSDR; evidence from Medicalnewstoday.com, id., page 92 in TSDR (stating CBD is
`
`2 See attached definition from MerriamWebster.com, defining “analgesic” as “an agent producing diminished sensation
`to pain without loss of consciousness : a drug that is used to relieve pain and produce analgesia”. https://www.merriam-
`webster.com/dictionary/analgesic. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board may take judicial notice of dictionary
`definitions that (1) are available in a printed format, (2) are the electronic equivalent of a print reference work, or (3)
`have regular fixed editions. See In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1747 n.15 (TTAB 2018) (taking
`judicial notice of definition from Dictionary.com because it was from The Random House Unabridged Dictionary),
`aff’d per curiam, 777 F. App’x 516, 2019 BL 343921 (Fed. Cir. 2019); In re Jimmy Moore LLC, 119 USPQ2d 1764,
`1768 (TTAB 2016) (taking judicial notice of definitions from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary at www.merriam-
`webster.com); In re Red Bull GmbH, 78 USPQ2d 1375, 1378 (TTAB 2006) (taking judicial notice of definition from
`Encarta Dictionary because it was readily available in specifically denoted editions via the Internet and CD-ROM);
`TBMP §1208.04; TMEP §710.01(c); see also Fed. R. Evid. 201; 37 C.F.R. §2.122(a).
`
`
`
`

`

`derived from the stalks and flowers of the hemp plant).  Applicant’s website includes CBD topical 
`
`goods for sale. See evidence from UncleBudsHemp.com, attached to June 18, 2020 Office Action,
`
`pages 74-75 in TSDR.  Applicant also states in its brief “the current Applicant’s goods contain 
`
`CBD derived from industrial hemp”. See Applicant’s Appeal Brief at 5.
`
`However, such goods cannot legally contain CBD without approval from the Food and
`
`Drug Administration. Cannabidiol (CBD) is a chemical constituent of the cannabis plant. On June
`
`25, 2018, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first prescription
`
`pharmaceutical formulation of plant-derived CBD, Epidiolex®, for the treatment of two rare forms 
`
`of epilepsy, Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and Dravet syndrome. The Drug Enforcement
`
`Administration (DEA) placed Epidiolex® on schedule V of the CSA on September 27, 2018.  No 
`
`other cannabis-derived drug products have been approved by the FDA. Under the FDCA, any
`
`product intended to have a therapeutic or medical use, and any product (other than a food) that is
`
`intended to affect the structure or function of the body of humans or animals, is a drug. 21 U.S.C.
`
`§ 321(g)(1). An unapproved new drug cannot be distributed or sold in interstate commerce unless
`
`it is the subject of an FDA-approved new drug application (NDA) or abbreviated new drug
`
`application (ANDA). 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(d) and 355(a), (b), & (j); see also FDA Regulation of
`
`Cannabis and Cannabis-Derived Products: Questions and Answers, copy attached to June 18, 2020
`
`Office Action, page 72 in TSDR; Statement from FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD on the
`
`signing of the Agricultural Improvement Act, copy attached to June 18, 2020 Office Action, page
`
`73 in TSDR.
`
`New drugs may not be legally introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate
`
`commerce without prior approval from the FDA, as described in 21 U.S.C. §§331(d) and 355(a).   
`
`In order for an application to have a valid basis that could properly result in a registration, the use
`
`of the mark has to be lawful. See In re Pepcom Indus., Inc., 192 USPQ 400, 401 (TTAB 1976).
`
`

`

`The claimed use of the mark in commerce without FDA approval would be unlawful use in
`
`commerce.
`
`Here, applicant’s goods are topical analgesics.  These goods consequently “affect the 
`
`structure or body of humans”, as they relieve pain.  The FDA has specifically warned companies 
`
`that pain-relieving products containing CBD, naturally occurring or otherwise, are not legal under
`
`the FDCA. See evidence from FDA.com FDA News Release (“FDA Warns Companies Illegally 
`
`Selling Over-the-Counter CBD Products for Pain Relief”), attached to October 28, 2021 Office 
`
`Action, pages 2-4 in TSDR; CannabisLegalHighlights.com (“CBD Regulation: Recent FDA 
`
`Enforcement Casts a Wide Net over CBD Products”), id., pages 5-8 in TSDR);
`
`EveryCRSReport.com (“FDA Regulation of Cannabidiol (CBD) Consumer Products:  Overview 
`
`and Considerations for Congress”), id., page 9 in TSDR). Therefore, these goods are not legal
`
`under the FDCA.
`
`In order for an application to have a valid basis that could properly result in a registration,
`
`the use of the mark has to be lawful. See In re Pepcom Indus., Inc., 192 USPQ 400, 401 (TTAB
`
`1976). Because use of the applied-for mark in connection with such goods was not lawful as of the
`
`filing date, applicant did not have a bona fide intent to lawfully use the applied-for mark in
`
`commerce in connection with such goods. See In re JJ206, LLC, 120 USPQ2d 1568, 1569 (TTAB
`
`2016) (“where the identified goods are illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA),
`
`the applicant cannot use its mark in lawful commerce, and ‘it is a legal impossibility’ for the
`
`applicant to have the requisite bona fide intent to use the mark.”); see also In re Brown, 119
`
`USPQ2d, 1351-1352; TMEP §907.
`
`Therefore, applicant does not have a bona fide intent to lawfully use the goods in
`
`commerce, as such goods are unlawful under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Thus, registration
`
`is refused pursuant to Sections 1 and 45 of the Trademark Act.
`
`

`

`Applicant’s Arguments Regarding Unlawful Use Refusal
`
`Applicant provides several arguments against this refusal. However, for the reasons set
`
`forth below, these are not persuasive.
`
`First, applicant argues that it is the owner of U.S. Registration No. 5305026 which also
`
`contains analgesic goods that contain CBD. This is not persuasive. It is well settled that each
`
`application must be decided on its own facts; the USPTO is not bound by prior decisions involving
`
`different records. See In re Boulevard Ent., Inc., 334 F.3d 1336, 1343, 67 USPQ2d 1475, 1480
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing In re Nett Designs, Inc., 236 F.3d at 1342, 57 USPQ2d at 1566); In re
`
`Datapipe, Inc., 111 USPQ2d 1330, 1336 (TTAB 2014); TMEP §1209.03(a). The examining
`
`attorney notes that U.S. Registration No. 5305026 was registered in 2017, before the amendments
`
`in the 2018 Farm Bill and subsequent clarification from the FDA regarding cannabidiol.
`
`Therefore, this prior registration is not sufficient to show that applicant has an intent to lawfully
`
`use the mark in commerce.
`
`Moreover, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has previously determined that applicants
`
`do not have a bona fide intent to use marks lawfully in commerce when CBD has been added to
`
`medicated products without prior approval from the FDA. Specifically, in In re AgrotecHemp
`
`Corp., the Board affirmed an unlawful use refusal under Sections 1 and 45 of the Trademark Act
`
`based on the FDCA wherein applicant filed an intent to use application for use with pharmaceutical
`
`plant extracts containing CBD. In re Agrotechemp Corp., Serial No. 88979905, 2022 TTAB
`
`LEXIS 65 (Trademark Trial & App. Bd. February 10, 2022). Specifically, the Board noted that
`
`“[t]he FDA requires any product marketed with a claim of therapeutic benefit and containing
`
`cannabis or cannabis-derived compounds (such as CBD) to be approved for its intended use before
`
`it may be introduced into interstate commerce. Because Applicant [in that case had] not made of
`
`record an NDA or ANDA for its goods, it was unlawful for Applicant to introduce such goods into
`
`

`

`interstate commerce as of the application filing date.”  Id. at *4; see also In re Harbor Hemp
`
`Company LLC, Serial Nos. 88377702 and 88377730, 2022 TTAB LEXIS 55 (Trademark Trial &
`
`App. Bd. January 27, 2022) (affirming an unlawful use refusal under Sections 1 and 45 of the
`
`Trademark Act based on the FDCA for Class 005 medicated products and supplements containing
`
`CBD).
`
`The same is true in this case – applicant has not provided any evidence that it has sought 
`
`FDA approval, and in fact, affirmatively asserts that its goods are not drugs or subject to FDA
`
`approval. See Applicant’s December 10, 2020 response, TSDR page 5.  Moreover, applicant also 
`
`attempts to claim that its products are not therapeutic in nature, but at the same token, identifies
`
`products in Class 5 that are described as topical analgesics and analgesic balms. These arguments
`
`are not persuasive, because as discussed earlier, analgesics are defined as drugs used for relieving
`
`pain, and as such, it is clear by definition that the identified goods are drugs designed to affect the
`
`structure of the body. See attached definition from Merriam-Webster. Therefore, because new
`
`drugs cannot be entered into interstate commerce without prior approval from the FDA, applicant
`
`did not have a bona fide intent to enter its products into lawful commerce.
`
`Second, applicant argues that its goods are not subject to the FDCA because its goods are
`
`topical analgesics and balms and are not to be ingested. This is not persuasive. The FDA has
`
`specifically issued warnings to manufacturers of topical CBD products when such products make
`
`therapeutic or medical claims, or are for the treatment of conditions. See evidence from
`
`CannabisLegalHighlights.com, attached to October 28, 2021 Office Action, pages 5-8 in TSDR
`
`(“In other words, a drug manufacturer cannot add CBD to a non-prescription over-the-counter 
`
`(OTC) pain cream, even if CBD is listed as in[sic] ‘inactive ingredient’.”); evidence from 
`
`EverCRSReport.com, id., page 9 in TSDR (“if a CBD-containing cosmetic product makes 
`
`

`

`therapeutic claims… FDA would likely consider the product to be a drug subject to the new drug 
`
`requirements.”).  Thus, the evidence demonstrates that such goods are prohibited under the FDCA.
`
`Third, applicant argues that the goods lawful under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
`
`because the goods contain naturally occurring CBD.  While applicant’s CBD may be legal under 
`
`the Controlled Substances Act, this does not mean the goods are legal under the Food, Drug, and
`
`Cosmetic Act. The FDCA does not make any exception for CBD that is naturally occurring. See In
`
`re Harbor Hemp Co., 2022 TTAB LEXIS 55, at *10 (“The fact that Applicant’s goods may be
`
`derived from “legally produced industrial hemp extract” does not obviate their unlawfulness under
`
`the FDCA. The FDA requires any product marketed with a claim of therapeutic benefit and
`
`containing cannabis or cannabis-derived compounds (such as hemp) to be approved for its
`
`intended use before it may be introduced into interstate commerce whether hemp-derived or
`
`not.”); see also Statement from FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D. on the signing of the
`
`Agriculture Improvement Act (discussing that CBD products are regulated by the FDA “This is
`
`true regardless of the source of the substance, including whether the substance is derived from a
`
`plant that is classified as hemp under the Agriculture Improvement Act”), attached to June 18, 
`
`2020 Office Action, page 73 in TSDR.  Therefore, contrary to applicant’s assertions, the FDA 
`
`draws no distinction as to the source of the CBD and CBD that may be legal under the Agriculture
`
`Improvement Act is not necessarily a legal ingredient of goods under the Food, Drug, and
`
`Cosmetic Act. As discussed above, the FDA has also specifically taken action against topical pain
`
`goods that contain CBD. See evidence from FDA.com FDA News Release (“FDA Warns 
`
`Companies Illegally Selling Over-the-Counter CBD Products for Pain Relief”), attached to October
`
`28, 2021 Office Action, pages 2-4 in TSDR; CannabisLegalHighlights.com (“CBD Regulation: 
`
`Recent FDA Enforcement Casts a Wide Net over CBD Products”), id., pages 5-8 in TSDR);
`
`EveryCRSReport.com (“FDA Regulation of Cannabidiol (CBD) Consumer Products:  Overview 
`
`

`

`and Considerations for Congress”), id., page 9 in TSDR).  Thus, applicant’s goods are unlawful 
`
`pursuant to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.
`
`For the reasons set forth above, applicant’s arguments do not overcome this refusal.
`
`
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Therefore, because the goods to which the mark is intended to be applied are not lawful
`
`under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, applicant does not have a bona fide intent lawfully to use
`
`the mark under Sections 1 and 45 of the Trademark Act. The examining attorney respectfully
`
`requests that the Board affirm the refusal to register the mark pursuant to Trademark Act Sections 1
`
`and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Alison Keeley/
`Examining Attorney
`Law Office 113
`(571) 272-4514
`Alison.Keeley@uspto.gov
`
`
`
`Myriah Habeeb
`Managing Attorney
`Law Office 113
`571-272-8909
`Myriah-Habeeb@uspto.gov
`
`

`

`
`
`
`WORDOF THE DAY
`aNts) eld
`LOG IN
`REGISTER
` GAMES & QU
`JOIN MWU
` 742 AUS)
`
`
`
`Merriam-
`
`
`
`Webster
`analgesic
`x Q
`SINGSEMIE
`
`
`BUCrey
`ttstiela's
`
`
`
`Phi.
`ora
`
`aN COLE AY)
`
`ONISLAND TIME
`\ a-nal-'jé-zik@®,-sik \
`
`analgesic noun
`
`
`analgesic |
`
`Definition of analgesic (Entry 1 of 2)
`: an agent producing diminished sensation to pain without loss of consciousness:
`a drugthat is used to relieve pain and produce analgesia
`// opioid analgesics
`// a topical analgesic
`// Aspirin and acetaminophenarethe oral analgesics of first choice in the treatment
`of mild to moderate pain caused by cancer.
`— William T. McGivneyetal.
`
`Midyear Outlook 2022
`
`Ad by Merill
`
`
`
`WORD OF THE DAY
`
`dilatory®
`https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/analgesic
`8:53:56 AM 8/15/2022
`
`

`

`
`REGISTER
`BSTUO WORDOF THE DAY
` LOG IN
`aNts) SHOP ~|JOIN MWU
`
`
`
`Merriam-
`
`BUCrey
`
`x Q
`
`
`
`Webster
`
`SINCE1828
`
`analgesic
`Dictionary
`
`analgesic adjective
`Definition of analgesic (Entry 2 of 2)
`: relating to, characterized by, or producing analgesia : relieving or lessening pain
`without loss of consciousness
`// Ginger, a memberof the same plant family as turmeric, contains anti-
`inflammatory compoundsandvolatile oils ... that show analgesic and sedative
`effects in animal studies.
`— Anahad O'Connor
`// analgesic drugs
`// a topical analgesic cream
`also : caused by the use of analgesics
`
`WORD OF THE DAY
`
`il«
`dilatory ®
`See Definitions and Examples »
`
`Get Word ofthe Day daily email!
`Your email address
`Toa wt
`
`// analgesic nephropathy Se StateFarm
`
`https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/analgesic
`
`StateFarm
`Saveup to 30%* with Drive Safe & Save™
`
`