Cannabis trademark lawyerWe’ve written extensively on cannabis trademarks and the unique issues posed by the fact that cannabis remains a Schedule I controlled substance under federal law. Some of the highlights can be found here:

We also like to write about more forward-thinking issues that could affect the cannabis industry, like plain packaging regulations and counterfeit goods, in order to help our clients and business owners prepare for what may be coming down the pipeline. One such issue we’ve been considering is how the cannabis industry will be affected if the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) moves cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, which is reserved for drugs that have a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical application, and a lack of acceptable safety standards for use under medical supervision, to Schedule II, allowing for more research and potentially making FDA-approved derivatives of cannabis available for prescription (with substantial restriction, natch).

Moving cannabis into the pharmaceutical realm would implicate a whole host of other federal laws and regulations, including rigorous Food and Drug Administration (FDA) review, and naming requirements that go beyond merely obtaining a federal trademark for your brand. Without venturing into the quagmire that is FDA review, the purpose of this post will be to give an overview of how the naming of cannabis “drugs” would change in the context of pharmaceuticals.

Marketed drugs have three different names: a chemical name, a generic name, and a brand name. The chemical name is the drug’s scientific name and, being generally unknown to the general population, is not used to identify the drug in clinical or marketing situations. The generic name is assigned by the United States Adopted Names (USAN) Council, and will be commonly used to identify a drug during its clinical lifespan. The brand name, which is always trademarked, is selected by the company that patents the drug and obtains 17 years to exclusively make, sell and use the drug pursuant to patent law.

A five-step process is undertaken in naming a marketable drug:

  1. New Chemical Entity (NCE) and patent application;
  2. Generic naming;
  3. Brand naming;
  4. FDA review; and
  5. Final approval.

Step one consists of submitting data on any newly discovered compound to the FDA for classification as an NCE to obtain authorization to begin animal testing to determine the effects of the compound. This step also includes beginning the patent application process, which can take multiple years to complete. After NCE classification, the USAN Council, which is composed of members of the United States Pharmacopeia, the American Medical Association, the American Pharmaceutical Association, and the FDA, creates and assigns a generic name to the chemical. The generic name is then sent to the World Health Organization for final approval. The USAN has certain criteria for naming, including that the name must be:

  1. Short;
  2. Easy to pronounce;
  3. Euphonic;
  4. Suitable for use in both the U.S. and internationally;
  5. Not misleading nor confusing;
  6. Not implying efficacy; and
  7. Not implying application to particular anatomical parts.

The process and considerations for developing a brand name to trademark are nearly identical to that of any other industry, in that the name cannot be generic or descriptive, and cannot be the same as or confusingly similar to any existing marks. Just as with the generic drug name, brand names to be registered with the USPTO for federal trademark protection cannot be misleading or misdescriptive. Additionally, the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) will evaluate, prior to the marketing of a drug, the “potential for a proposed proprietary name (i.e., ‘brand name’) to cause or contribute to medication errors as part of the Center’s focus on the safe use of drug and therapeutic biologic products.” The purpose of this review is to ensure accurate interpretation of the product’s name for product procurement, prescription, preparation, dispensing, and administration to patients. Healthcare practitioners rely on a drug’s name as a critical identifier of a product amongst thousands of other drugs. Confusing names can lead to administering the wrong product to patients or dispensing the product incorrectly.

While this is a very brief, high level overview of the pharmaceutical naming process, the takeaway is that if cannabis moves from Schedule I to Schedule II of the CSA, the complexities of branding and trademarking may change, but they certainly won’t disappear.

Print:
EmailTweetLikeLinkedIn
Photo of Alison Malsbury Alison Malsbury

Alison primarily focuses on corporate and intellectual property transactions, working primarily with Harris Bricken’s cannabis, tech and entertainment clients. She has assisted clients with contracts, company formation, intellectual property protection, and regulatory compliance, and enjoys working with creative entrepreneurs at all stages of…

Alison primarily focuses on corporate and intellectual property transactions, working primarily with Harris Bricken’s cannabis, tech and entertainment clients. She has assisted clients with contracts, company formation, intellectual property protection, and regulatory compliance, and enjoys working with creative entrepreneurs at all stages of business development. Alison has a strong and growing practice representing celebrities on their cannabis endorsement deals and helping cosmetic and skin care companies navigate the complicated laws involving CBD.

Before joining Harris Bricken, Alison worked with the in-house legal team of one of the largest software companies in the world on their trademark and technology licensing issues.

Alison teaches Cannabis Law and Policy at Santa Clara University School of Law, where she graduated cum laude and was the technical editor for the Santa Clara Journal of International Law. During her time, she also received multiple awards in intellectual property, including the High Tech Excellence Award and the Witkin Award for Academic Excellence in Patents.

A Seattle native, Alison enjoys cycling, skiing, surfing, and just about any outdoor endeavor. She can often be found spending time with her rescued cat, Floyd, and her dog, Wiley.