Big Tobacco goes ham (in the worst way) against the cannabis industry
The assertions made by major tobacco companies against prominent cannabis companies and the celebrities associated with them are often exaggerated and even comical. In recent trademark lawsuits, a tobacco company has gone so far as to claim that pre-rolled cones, organic hemp papers, and other common products in the rolling paper industry are classified as paraphernalia.
Their latest argument suggests that pre-rolled cones, organic hemp papers, and hemp gum are specifically designed for use with marijuana, while traditional rolling papers, which some tobacco companies sell, are exempt. This raises concerns that “Big Tobacco” is moving into the legal marijuana market, as highlighted by Altria, the owner of Marlboro, and their involvement in the industry. Rather than directly entering the market, some tobacco companies have chosen a different approach: targeting their competitors through trademark lawsuits. These lawsuits appear to have hidden motives beyond their stated purpose. The Boston Globe reported on this trend, shedding light on the potential strategies employed by Big Tobacco companies.
High Times recently uncovered an attempt to smear cannabis consumers and present a hypocritical argument. In a legal dispute, Republic Brands, a tobacco company owned by Don Levin, filed a lawsuit against HBI International, the parent company of RAW, and RAW founder Josh Kesselman. RAW is a popular brand of rolling papers in the cannabis industry. The lawsuit eventually drew in High Times, as evidence was presented suggesting that rolling papers are intended for marijuana use.
One of the allegations against RAW was that they falsely claimed their papers were manufactured in Alcoy, Spain, known for producing renowned Bambú papers. The Republic sought to invalidate RAW’s trademark by arguing that their intention was to make cones and other cannabis consumption materials illegal. Republic’s lawyers argued in federal court that pre-rolled cones were specifically designed in the 1990s for holding marijuana and are primarily marketed for that purpose today. They claimed that these cones violate the Controlled Substances Act in relation to drug paraphernalia.
As part of their case, Republic presented social media images featuring Miley Cyrus and Wiz Khalifa using RAW cones sourced from RAW advertisements. Additionally, Republic highlighted RAW’s advertisements in High Times Magazine as evidence that the rolling papers are primarily used for cannabis and should be deemed illegal. The court filings included photographs related to The Emerald Cup, previous issues of High Times, and posts from the Cannabis Cup as supporting evidence.
In response to Republic Brands’ lawsuit, HBI International filed a counterclaim. During the legal proceedings, the jury determined that HBI International had violated the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act by falsely claiming their rolling papers were manufactured in Alcoy. However, the jury also found that Republic infringed on their copyrights and trade dress. As a result, the jury awarded HBI over $1 million in lost profits and statutory damages.
HBI’s counterclaim asserts that Republic Brands has a history of initiating lawsuits against smaller competitors to strengthen its market presence. Not only RAW but other businesses have also faced legal challenges. ITG, the maker of Kool menthol cigarettes, filed a lawsuit against Capna Intellectual (doing business as Bloom Brands), alleging that the company infringed on their trademark by using a similar logo. This case raises questions about the distinctiveness of the interlocking “O” design, which some argue can be found in other logos like Dolce & Gabbana’s.
According to court filings, Bloom Brands filed a trademark application in 2019 with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to register a similar mark for e-cigarette and vape sales. ITG claims that Bloom’s actions were deliberate and carried out in bad faith, aiming to trade on ITG’s reputation and dilute the Kool marks.
One of ITG’s arguments is that the interlocking “O” design is iconic and distinctive enough to warrant broad protection. They believe that using a similar mark on smokable cannabis products could lead consumers to believe that the brands are affiliated or share a common origin.
Similar trademark disputes have arisen in the cannabis industry involving candy companies and food brands like Tapatio. Lawsuits of this nature often have multiple motives at play, but with the general intention of eliminating competition.
