What's to stop someone from renaming a known strain?

EverythingsHazy

Well-Known Member
What's to stop it? Very little. Also, unless it's a clone, even DNA testing wouldn't be able to prove much, because seeds all have different genetics. That's why strains aren't the as useful as people sometimes believe. If you really want to get something that you like, you should look for a clone, unless it's been stabilized for at least several generations, in which case, the offspring may be quite uniform, albeit still genetically different.

That said, it's a bit underhanded to do so, and it wouldn't make for the best reputation, if one is caught doing so.
 

dbz

Well-Known Member
I highly doubt that many breeders go through the trouble of locking in RIL breeding on clones nor go to F5 "stable" strains. Not like that isn't also different phenos but tend to be more similar. In many generations the offspring is a crapshoot ime
 

JeffWix

Well-Known Member
I highly doubt that many breeders go through the trouble of locking in RIL breeding on clones nor go to F5 "stable" strains. Not like that isn't also different phenos but tend to be more similar. In many generations the offspring is a crapshoot ime
Tony Green comes to mind here as a breeder that does so...and....Luke from Omuerta Genetix takes most of his work through the F generations and IBLs... Copa does a lot of work...there are a few others out there that put in the work...the rest I would say just throw two things together that sounds good, name it, and sell it to all the glassy eyes fools who buy it.
 

xtsho

Well-Known Member
Those are corporate entities targeting strains using their product names. There is no protection for cannabis breeders since cannabis is illegal at the federal level. I can use any cannabis strain name for anything I grow and there is nothing they can do about it. That doesn't mean that someone else couldn't come after me.

For instance, Breeder X makes a strain and calls it Big Mac. I could call a strain I made that same name. Breeder X could attempt to stop me and I would just give them the middle finger and that would be the end of that. They have no legal recourse to stop me from using that name. The McDonald's corporation could however come after me and force me to stop using the name since they have trademarked Big Mac in the United States.
 

conor c

Well-Known Member
Those are corporate entities targeting strains using their product names. There is no protection for cannabis breeders since cannabis is illegal at the federal level. I can use any cannabis strain name for anything I grow and there is nothing they can do about it. That doesn't mean that someone else couldn't come after me.

For instance, Breeder X makes a strain and calls it Big Mac. I could call a strain I made that same name. Breeder X could attempt to stop me and I would just give them the middle finger and that would be the end of that. They have no legal recourse to stop me from using that name. The McDonald's corporation could however come after me and force me to stop using the name since they have trademarked Big Mac in the United States.
As he said and most of the worlds the same sadly there simply is no real legal recourse when folks sell stuff under any name real or not while this plant is still persecuted imo till its treated like tomatoes for example it will be the same you will always have someone trying to cash in on a name even if what they selling in reality isnt even those genetics
 

mudballs

Well-Known Member
For instance, Breeder X makes a strain and calls it Big Mac. I could call a strain I made that same name. Breeder X could attempt to stop me and I would just give them the middle finger and that would be the end of that.
wrong, i could come to your state, and county, and file an injunction. It would be very very difficult to find a lawyer to help me, but i don't need a lawyer to do this. I can just go to a court clerk and start filing this shit myself.
State rules regarding preliminary injunctions vary from state to state. well...maybe i should start unblocking people and see what other dumb shit is getting thrown around as fact.
 

Kgrim

Well-Known Member
Tony Green comes to mind here as a breeder that does so...and....Luke from Omuerta Genetix takes most of his work through the F generations and IBLs... Copa does a lot of work...there are a few others out there that put in the work...the rest I would say just throw two things together that sounds good, name it, and sell it to all the glassy eyes fools who buy it.
I've grown a few strains from Omuerta, and Luke does put in the work. The last run of Thousand Oaks that I did were very uniform. Even the last pack of testers that I ran were real nice, but some folks had problems, and he didn't release it. Wish I would have kept clones, because it was a very good strain for washing. It was one of my better producers of Bubble Hash. IMO Omuerta is a breeder flying under the radar that has some real fire genetics.
 

xtsho

Well-Known Member
Nothing is stopping anyone from renaming or using any existing name used for cannabis strains since you can't trademark anything that violates federal law.

For instance, Breeder X makes a strain and calls it Big Mac. I could call a strain I made that same name. Breeder X could attempt to stop me and I would just give them the middle finger and that would be the end of that.
wrong, i could come to your state, and county, and file an injunction. It would be very very difficult to find a lawyer to help me, but i don't need a lawyer to do this. I can just go to a court clerk and start filing this shit myself.
State rules regarding preliminary injunctions vary from state to state. well...maybe i should start unblocking people and see what other dumb shit is getting thrown around as fact.
I don't need you replying to my posts with nonsense. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about as usual. You can find all the lawyers you want and come to my state and let them take your money for nothing. They can't change federal law. Maybe instead of trying to discredit me you should educate yourself on federal trademark law. Which is what matters. Anyone can file a lawsuit it's winning that lawsuit that matters.

Until cannabis is legalized at the federal level you will not be issued a trademark. The exception being hemp related products that contain less than .3% THC

"If the identified services involve cannabis that is “hemp” (i.e., contains less than 0.3% THC), the applications will also be examined for compliance with the requirements of the 2018 Farm Bill."

You can't obtain a trademark for goods and services that are illegal under federal law.

Do you have any more dumb shit to post?

From the USPTO United States Patent and Trademark Office:

"Use of a mark in commerce must be lawful under federal law to be the basis for federal registration under the U.S. Trademark Act. See generally Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) §907. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) refuses to register marks for goods and/or services that show a clear violation of federal law, regardless of the legality of the activities under state law. A determination of whether commerce involving cannabis and cannabis-related goods and services is lawful requires consultation of several different federal laws, including the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. §§801 et seq., the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. §§301 et seq., and the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, Pub. L. 115-334 (the 2018 Farm Bill), which amends the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (AMA). The USPTO issues this examination guide to clarify the procedure for examining marks for cannabis and cannabis-derived goods and for services involving cannabis and cannabis production following the 2018 Farm Bill."

"When applications recite services involving cannabis-related activities, they will be examined for compliance with the CSA and the 2018 Farm Bill. As discussed above, the CSA prohibits, among other things, manufacturing, distributing, dispensing, or possessing cannabis that meets the definition of marijuana. Therefore, the USPTO will continue to refuse registration when the identified services in an application involve cannabis that meets the definition of marijuana and encompass activities prohibited under the CSA because such services still violate federal law, regardless of the application filing date."



It's all spelled out on the Federal website for those smart enough to read which apparently is something you struggle with.



I just realized this fool has me blocked so won't likely see my post. Oh well. Let them continue to wallow in the mud like a silly hog.
 

LowRange

Well-Known Member
A name is pretty meaningless until it's connected to a specific breeder. Then it becomes useful for identifying a particular pheno. So you can re-buy a favorite strain, or buy beans on someone's recommendation and have some level of guarentee what you are getting.
 

mudballs

Well-Known Member
Nothing is stopping anyone from renaming or using any existing name used for cannabis strains since you can't trademark anything that violates federal law.



I don't need you replying to my posts with nonsense. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about as usual. You can find all the lawyers you want and come to my state and let them take your money for nothing. They can't change federal law. Maybe instead of trying to discredit me you should educate yourself on federal trademark law. Which is what matters. Anyone can file a lawsuit it's winning that lawsuit that matters.

Until cannabis is legalized at the federal level you will not be issued a trademark. The exception being hemp related products that contain less than .3% THC

"If the identified services involve cannabis that is “hemp” (i.e., contains less than 0.3% THC), the applications will also be examined for compliance with the requirements of the 2018 Farm Bill."

You can't obtain a trademark for goods and services that are illegal under federal law.

Do you have any more dumb shit to post?

From the USPTO United States Patent and Trademark Office:

"Use of a mark in commerce must be lawful under federal law to be the basis for federal registration under the U.S. Trademark Act. See generally Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) §907. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) refuses to register marks for goods and/or services that show a clear violation of federal law, regardless of the legality of the activities under state law. A determination of whether commerce involving cannabis and cannabis-related goods and services is lawful requires consultation of several different federal laws, including the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. §§801 et seq., the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. §§301 et seq., and the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, Pub. L. 115-334 (the 2018 Farm Bill), which amends the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (AMA). The USPTO issues this examination guide to clarify the procedure for examining marks for cannabis and cannabis-derived goods and for services involving cannabis and cannabis production following the 2018 Farm Bill."

"When applications recite services involving cannabis-related activities, they will be examined for compliance with the CSA and the 2018 Farm Bill. As discussed above, the CSA prohibits, among other things, manufacturing, distributing, dispensing, or possessing cannabis that meets the definition of marijuana. Therefore, the USPTO will continue to refuse registration when the identified services in an application involve cannabis that meets the definition of marijuana and encompass activities prohibited under the CSA because such services still violate federal law, regardless of the application filing date."



It's all spelled out on the Federal website for those smart enough to read which apparently is something you struggle with.



I just realized this fool has me blocked so won't likely see my post. Oh well. Let them continue to wallow in the mud like a silly hog.
Federal law has nothing to do with an injunction regarding civil actions. Us trade and patent has nothing to do with it either...yet. just the injunction has to be proved you are causing injury.
You made a long post that essentially is wrong...badgered me to post more dumb shit but again im putting the actual correct info out there. Federal law isnt involved, and neither is USpTO or Farm Bill or CSA...thats how fkn stupid you are.
None of that shit has anything to do with the legal recourse a breeder has at his or her disposal to make you regret your middle finger
Breeder X makes a strain and calls it Big Mac. I could call a strain I made that same name. Breeder X could attempt to stop me and I would just give them the middle finger
bullshit...ill walk right up into ur court clerk and start filing injunction papers. i will have to prove shit later in court but your long winded post is based in a false reality you live in, contrived from false information.
 

xtsho

Well-Known Member
Federal law has nothing to do with an injunction regarding civil actions. Us trade and patent has nothing to do with it either...yet. just the injunction has to be proved you are causing injury.
You made a long post that essentially is wrong...badgered me to post more dumb shit but again im putting the actual correct info out there. Federal law isnt involved, and neither is USpTO or Farm Bill or CSA...thats how fkn stupid you are.
None of that shit has anything to do with the legal recourse a breeder has at his or her disposal to make you regret your middle finger
Breeder X makes a strain and calls it Big Mac. I could call a strain I made that same name. Breeder X could attempt to stop me and I would just give them the middle finger
bullshit...ill walk right up into ur court clerk and start filing injunction papers. i will have to prove shit later in court but your long winded post is based in a false reality you live in, contrived from false information.
You're 100% dumber than dumb. Please put me back on ignore and stop replying to my posts with your ignorance.

You are one of the most ignorant posters on this site.
 

mudballs

Well-Known Member
You're 100% dumber than dumb. Please put me back on ignore and stop replying to my posts with your ignorance.

You are one of the most ignorant posters on this site.
I agree...i tried to unignore someone to say you can sue anyone for anything and forgot who i was dealing with. if you got the money and a lawyer willing to do it you can make a breeder wish he never used the word Big Mac
 

xtsho

Well-Known Member
I agree...i tried to unignore someone to say you can sue anyone for anything and forgot who i was dealing with. if you got the money and a lawyer willing to do it you can make a breeder wish he never used the word Big Mac
The term "Big Mac" is trademarked legally. That trademark is used for a product that is legal under federal law. If you had a brain, could read, and actually comprehend what you read you would keep your yapper closed.

I never said the term Big Mac could be used. This thread was about people using strain names that are being used by someone else. There is no protection for illegal items that cannot be trademarked.



Quote for truth
︶︿︶)_╭∩╮
Your argument is without merit. If you read that article the names being used were infringements on trademarks for legal items. Girl Scout Cookies, Gorilla Glue, Jagermeister, are all product names of legal products that are sold.

There is no protection whatsoever for some pollen chucker that called their strain Pinkberry bubblegum Rainbow Haze. Anyone can use that name for their own strain without fear of any legal ramifications because cannabis products are illegal under federal law. If you're too slow to catch up that's not my problem but something that YOU need to work on.

If you would have read the thread from the first post to know what was being discussed you would have kept your sticky fingers from typing your silly posts. As it is you're making an argument just because you have the desire to prove me wrong. You've failed yet again and you will always fail because you do not have adequate thinking skills and react emotionally rather than objectively.

You've devoted numerous posts to prove me wrong not just in this thread but in others and you've failed every time which is why you put me on ignore after being humiliated. In this case you're argument doesn't even make sense.

Go ahead and name a strain anything you want and then see what recourse you have if I name a strain the same name and market it for sale. Go get all the lawyers you want. There is absolutely nothing you could do which is what I've posted. You chose to not pay attention or are unable to follow along so you went off on some tangent about civil action and other nonsense. Go back and read the entire thread including what I posted. I know you won't because stupid people always double down on stupidity.

Also, as far as Big Mac is concerned a breeder can use that name just not a US breeder. The EU has ruled against McDonald's and their exclusive use of the term Big Mac.

"The ruling allows other companies as well as McDonald’s to use the “Big Mac” name in the EU."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mcdonald-s-corp-trademark-supermacs/mcdonalds-loses-big-mac-trademark-case-to-irish-chain-supermacs-idUSKCN1P92JA

Some of us know things while some of YOU know nothing. You're out of your league. Have a nice day.
 

Thundercat

Well-Known Member
Quote for truth
︶︿︶)_╭∩╮
Just FYI these are all examples of a legal trademark being infringed apon by a cannabis brand. Im a glass blower and I've seen the same thing happen in the glass industry when an artist infringed on a trademarked logo, design or imagery.

I only mention it because it is a bit different then the topic of this thread. The thread has been about illegal breeders changing names or using each other's names.
 
Top