The District Court of Arizona Tuesday issued an order in a trademark dispute between BKK Tobacco & Foods and Central Coast Agriculture Incorporated (CCA), a cannabis products manufacturer.
The mixed ruling granted the defendant cannabis company’s summary judgment motions, but voided their trademark applications for lack of demonstrated intent to use in commerce, according to lawstreetmedia.com.
Further, the complaint states that in late 2013, Central Coast Agricultural Incorporated (CCA) began distributing cannabis concentrate products branded as “RawCo2,” “Raw Hashish,” “RawSin” and “Raw Gold.” The order also states that in 2016, CCA began selling cannabis concentrates under the unified brand “Raw Garden.”
On September 18, 2019, BKK initiated the present lawsuit alleging trademark infringement, false designation of origin, false advertising, unfair competition, cybersquatting and a petition to void several trademark applications by CCA due to a lack of a bona fide intent to use. On May 4, 2021, the court granted CCA’s motion to dismiss the false advertising claim but declined to dismiss the petition to void the trademark applications.
CCA moved for summary judgment on BBK’s infringement, false designation of origin, cybersquatting and unfair competition claims and raised a number of affirmative defenses including laches, waiver, estoppel, acquiescence, statute of limitations and unclean hands. Additionally, BKK filed cross-motions for summary judgment for all of CCA’s affirmative defenses and counterclaims and BKKS petition to void CCA’s trademark applications.
The court ruled that there is no likelihood of confusion between BKK’s Raw trademark and CCA’s applications for Raw Garden and thus granted CCA’s summary judgment motion, lawstreetmedia.com writes.
Further, the court stated that because no likelihood of confusion exists, the court declined to address CCA’s laches and unclean hands defenses.
However, the court granted BKK’s motion for summary judgment to void CCA’s trademark applications because CCA failed to provide evidence showing that it intended to use the Raw Garden trademark in connection to non-hemp-related products as identified in the trademark application, according to lawstreetmedia.com.
Due to the court’s ruling in the various motions for summary judgment, it closed the case stating that all claims and counterclaims asserted by the parties have been resolved or rendered moot by its order.