Soybean Trait Gives Deer the Screaming Meanies

Researchers at the University of Tennessee have inserted a gene in wild-type soybeans that give deer an upset stomach (and probably the squirts too), according to a recent report by Raney Rapp of Farm Progress. The trait allows the plants to produce trypsin inhibitors, which interfere with protein digestion. In crop production environments, deer tend to feed heavily on soybean crops, leading to yield losses that can be significant. Beans with the new trait give deer a case of the sour stomach, leading them to consider something else to feed on. You can read more here.

CBD Without the Cannabis

Cannabidiol, widely referred to as “CBD,” one of the active compounds in cannabis, has apparently been discovered in other plants, including Trema micranthum, a common Brazilian plant. A team of researchers led by molecular biologist Rodrigo Moura Neto, announced that they discovered CBD in the fruits and flowers of Trema micranthum, a shrub often considered a weed in Brazil, and found growing wild in Mexico, several Caribbean islands, and even in Florida. CBD production and popularity surged in the U.S. after hemp cultivation was authorized in the 2018 Farm Bill.

Because the plant doesn’t produce delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive compound in cannabis, the discovery may open the door to a source of CBD that would avoid regulatory hurdles and be cheaper to produce. However, it should be noted that the results of the researchers’ studies have yet to be published, leaving the claims unverified. You can read more here.

One Too Many Beer Law Firms Leads to Trademark Lawsuit

The law firm of Matheson & Associates, PLLC, which provides legal services to craft brewers and distillers under the brand, “Beer Law Center,” has filed a federal lawsuit in North Carolina, accusing Colorado law firm Whitcomb Selinsky, P.C. of trademark infringement for using the name “Beer Law HQ” to market its legal services in the same brewing and distilling markets. According to the complaint Attorney John Szymankiewicz of the Matheson firm began using the name “Beer Law Center” in 2013 and subsequently registered trademarks for the name and a design mark which it uses to promote the firm’s legal services to alcohol businesses:

While at a craft beer conference, Szymankiewicz encountered a Colorado lawyer with a booth using the name “Beer Law HQ” with the following logo:

Apparently there was some email discussion back and forth between the lawyers about rebranding the Colorado firm’s beer logos, but ultimately things didn’t get worked out. Thus, Szymankiewicz’s firm filed suit for trademark infringement, seeking injunctive relief and damages.

This case feels strangely familiar to us. More importantly, I wonder whether this case could be settled over a beer or two?

The Battle of Cape

A Story in Several Parts

Recall from our last part, after our polite Cease & Desist letter didn’t convince an Arizona law business to stop using our Firm’s name, we stepped up our efforts by filing an Opposition to the Arizona business’ pending trademark applications with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). An Opposition is somewhat akin to a federal court proceeding, but focuses solely on whether or not the marks in the opposed trademark applications should be federally registered. In an Opposition, the opposer essentially pleads to the USPTO that allowing the marks to become registered will cause harm to the opposer’s business. As a practical matter, filing an Opposition demonstrates that the opposer is serious and willing to fight to defend its business and brand.

Like federal court litigation, an Opposition proceeds according to a Scheduling Order entered by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), setting deadlines for discovery, disclosure of expert witnesses, and the filing of motions and trial disclosures. This schedule typically stretches out for 18 months from start to finish, including the final trial filings, with a decision from the TTAB coming from 3 to 6 months after the final trial filings. Thus, if an Opposition is litigated to its conclusion, it may take close to 2 years to reach a resolution. Of course, that assumes that the Opposition proceeds according to the schedule with no extensions.

It didn’t take long in our Opposition proceeding for the extensions to start rolling in. First, the other side sought an extension of time to file an Answer due to a busy holiday season for its Israeli-based principals (side note – the Arizona law business was initially formed by another company based in Israel, and it was this Israeli company that filed the trademark applications which we opposed). A second extension request came a short while later due to the Israel-Hamas war – of course, we gave our consent to this extension. A third extension request came in about 30 days after the second request, also for the Israel-Hamas war, and again, we consented to this extension. Thus, more than 6 months passed before we were able to begin discovery. We eventually served a full set of discovery on the other side, including interrogatories, requests for documents, and requests for admission. But instead of getting answers and information in response, we received mostly objections. At this point, the notion that our trademark dispute could be resolved without full-scale litigation dimmed significantly.

Tune in next time for some discussion on how we approached our next steps in our brand protection saga.