October 2020

Heather L. Burke, P.C.’s Statement re Appellation Petition Support Services


In anticipation of the coming opening of CDFA’s appellations program, Sarah and I wanted to publish the limited appellation-related services we are offering in an effort to make the process of selecting legal support as streamlined and transparent as possible. 

Our firm is breaking the work into two categories: (1) entity and business development (i.e. “the legal stuff”) and (2) project management (i.e. drafting the petition and collaborating with consultants and soil/water/geological scientists). Not all of that work needs to be done by an attorney, so here’s more detail about our available services, as well as a few suggestions to best manage the appellation petition preparation process: 

Entity Formation and Contract Drafting Services (The “Legal Stuff”)

For simple liability reasons, our firm is likely to advise hopeful appellation groups to structure their appellations as business entities (LLCs, corporations, b corps, etc.) with appropriate arm’s length agreements between the appellation business entity and the farmer-members’ entities. This is true legal work that should be performed by an attorney.

Formation documents often form the basis of ownership disputes in the future, so thoughtful entity formation and governance is often critical to the sustained success of a new business venture, especially in light of the legacy (i.e. long game) strategy of the appellations program. 

Project Management Services 

As we’ve done for clients many times in the past, we will likely prepare a “Project Management Task List” and use that document to delegate tasks and to calendar deadlines for task deliverables. In that document, we will name a project manager, identify team member roles/responsibilities, and track assigned consultant or scientific reports (including due dates). 

Our Project Management Task Lists ensure all tasks are being handled, that everyone has clear responsibilities, and that communications are efficient. 

Petition Drafting Services

Appellations petitions require two different types of reports: (1) technical (i.e. scientific) reports and (2) non-technical (i.e. not scientific) reports. Due to the significant time it takes to draft these reports, preparation of these documents is the most expensive and time consuming piece of any application process. Taking the time to delegate each writing task in a cost-effective manner can save THOUSANDS of dollars. No joke.   

For example, it may be more cost-effective to assign the bulk of the non-technical drafting work if someone in the appellation’s core team is proficient in writing narrative-style reports for the various regulatory agencies (CDFA, CDFW, water board, etc.) since those reports require a similar skill set. Another way we keep our clients’ drafting costs down is the use of template and sample documents, which we prepare based on the regulations and usually include writing prompts. That way, folks can fill the narrative reports themselves (and save $$ on drafting costs).  

In any event, we will support our clients in non-technical drafting in whatever way makes sense.

Regulatory and Land-Use Support Services

As with any new venture in California cannabis agriculture, the application of commercial standards to what would otherwise amount to pure agricultural activity leads to intensive regulatory and land-use issues. Just as with local land-use permits and state licensing, this type of work can be performed by any competent consultant and oftentimes by the appellation groups themselves. We can, however, provide oversight and guidance when needed. 

Attorney’s Fees

As with all our services, our fees for appellation development and petition support are negotiable and, to ensure our rates are fair, we intend to graduate our billable rates based on the complexity of the services required. For example, petition drafting services will be billed at a lower rate than legal and entity structuring tasks. 


We are committed to seeing California’s appellations through to a new era of business transactions where the craft cannabis produced in our hills fetches the highest price in the regulated marketplace. We understand the importance of this program to our shared community and are hopeful for the honor in assisting in this historic endeavor. 


*This post is subject to Rule 7.1-7.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. This communication (1) is an advertisement, (2) may not contain any untrue statement, and (3) is directed to the general public via a website. Our firm’s name and address is Origin Group Law LLP: 408 Broad Street, Suite 11B, Nevada City, CA 95959.

Products Liability Insurance Issues for California’s Regulated Cannabis Farmers

When it comes to minimizing risk for farmers, products liability insurance is probably the most important thing no one forces a cannabis farmer to obtain. While products liability insurance gets overlooked because no agency demands proof of coverage, this type of insurance coverage is necessary to protect against consumer claims. It only takes one products liability lawsuit to bankrupt a new business.

Products Liability Overview

Sick or injured consumers regularly file products liability lawsuits claiming a product caused their sickness or their injury. These claims take many forms, including injuries caused by (1) contamination, (2) design defects, (3) improper warnings, and (4) mislabeling, among others. Product liability claims in the cannabis industry are perhaps inevitable, especially given cannabis’ recent arrival to the regulated marketplace and residual notions of reefer madness. 

Suing the Supply Chain

Some (but not all) of these types of claims are subject to “strict liability” which means a farmer (or manufacturer or distributor or retailer)’s intent and their regulatory compliance do not matter. Indeed, everyone who participated in bringing the product to market can be held responsible under a strict liability theory, from the farmer all the way through the supply chain to the retailer. Even worse, folks in the supply chain can be held liable under a strict liability theory, even when they took reasonable steps to prevent the product defect that is alleged to have caused the consumer (aka the plaintiff) sickness or injury.

Even if strict liability isn’t in play, it may be hard for a consumer to prove exactly when the product was supposedly contaminated so everyone in the supply chain is usually named as a defendant. For example, just yesterday a Southern California law firm announced a products liability lawsuit against Kushy Punch, an edibles company, claiming the cannabis edible caused the death of a young woman named Le’Sharia Bre’Aun Steele. Notably, the lawsuit names the grower (an indoor producer in Adelanto or Cathedral City), the manufacturer (Kushy Punch), the retailer (Urbn Leaf in San Diego), in addition to several others which we presume are the distribution company, perhaps a transport company, and/or any parent companies. 

The scariest part about product liability is that some unlucky cultivators will get dragged in to these types of lawsuits even if the harm had nothing to do with the cannabis or if the cannabis became harmful after it left the farm. Mounting a legal defense is extremely expensive in these cases. 

Fortunately, a product liability insurance policy can help.

The Duty to Defend

I spent the first half of my career as a civil litigator and represented lots of small businesses that got sued because they touched a project that went bad. Oftentimes it wasn’t their fault, but proving that takes time and (expensive) expert witnesses. My clients couldn’t afford that, but my legal bills were sent to the insurance company because insurance policies often contain a “duty to defend.” The product liability policy’s “duty to defend” requirement means the insurance company has to provide a legal defense if you get sued for something your policy would cover. 


Subrogation is when an insurance company goes after a third-party to recover amounts paid on behalf of their own policy-holder. For instance, if a consumer is hurt and their insurance is paying millions of dollars in medical bill, the consumer may be required to cooperate with their insurance company’s efforts to recover those losses by suing the supply chain. 

Additional Insureds 

If the buyer of the farmer’s cannabis is willing/able to list the farmer as an “additional insured,” farmers might be able to get around buying products liability insurance. However, a buyer’s product liability policy holder (aka the insurance company) may not be willing to add the farmer as an additional insured where the buyer is acting as a mere middleman to packaged products, though it is likely the insurance company will have any problems adding a farmer in a bulk wholesale situation.  

When the one party is added to the other’s product liability policy, the insurance company will defend the farmer too. Additionally, the insurance company can’t force their policy holder to sue the additionally insured party because insurance companies can’t pursue subrogation against people covered under the same policy.

We expect to see the use of additional insured increase in the coming years, both by the farmer and by buyers in the regulated marketplace. 

Understanding the Policy Exclusions

Cannabis farmers must be savvy insurance shoppers, meaning a farmer should not assume a product liability claim will be covered just because they paid for product liability insurance. All of the policies need to be reviewed for “federally unlawful conduct” exclusions. Additionally, product liability policies can also exclude intoxicants, carcinogens, and hardware, which is critically important if the product is going to a manufacturer. 

Cannabis farmers must disclose to the insurance agent that the farmer is a cannabis business, and then the farmer must ask about exclusions and policy types. Some policies only cover claims that are made during the policy period, while others focus on when the injury itself occurred. Look for insurance agencies that cater to cannabis companies – a cannabis farmer might pay a little more, but they are better equipped to address coverage issues unique to cannabis.


Products liability claims are scary, and no one wants to be accused of producing a product that harms another human. But this is how business is in the United States whether we like it or not, so products liability lawsuits are a risk that go hand in hand with putting products into the market. There’s simply no possible way to prevent all potential claims. 

Notably, however, products liability insurance should be able to protect the policyholder and any additional insured, so we sincerely hope folks take this protection seriously and get a meaningful policy in place before putting their cannabis into the marketplace.

Authored by Sarah Smale

Edited by Heather Burke

Gettin’ Paid: A 2020 Debt Collection Primer for California Cannabis Farmers

In the first few years of regulated cannabis activity in California, many (if not most) cannabis farmers did not get paid for their product on time and, in some cases, they didn’t get paid at all. Debt collection quickly became a hot topic, as unpaid farmers waded through their legal options, from selling the debt to full tilt civil litigation. In those situations, a written contract almost always helps the farmer, which means oral agreements often hurt the producer (aka the farmer) more than the buyer (aka the distributor or manufacturer). To be sure, the best defense is a good offense (just sayin’).

While we are hoping to see more on-time payments this year, here’s a quick reminder of the debt-collection issues in play for the 2020 harvest season just in case:

1.  Private Debt Collectors

There are a few private companies who will buy or assume a farmer’s outstanding debt, oftentimes at pennies on the dollar. Although there are lots of ads for these companies on the internet, we’ve not yet heard of a debt collection company actually getting a farmer their money in the California cannabis farming context, but our fingers are crossed that this method becomes more viable in the future.

If a farmer decides to go with a private debt collection company, it’s important to keep the statute of limitation in mind, so it’s wise to check with an attorney regarding how much time to give the debt collector to collect.

2.   A Demand Letter

A “demand letter” is a letter demanding that someone pay a debt as agreed, and this is often the first step in more aggressively going after an unpaid debt. A demand letter does not necessarily need to be written by an attorney, though a formal demand is often a legal requirement before suing someone, yet they also might used as evidence down the road. That’s why demand letters should be prepared with the nuanced case-specific legal issues in mind.

Demand letters can do more harm than good if they are sloppy, admit a weakness in the case, or disclose a legal strategy too soon. Be wary of sending out demand letters without properly vetting the legal issues and the legal strategy, including avoiding making any damaging admissions. Consider sending the demand letter confidentially, pursuant to California’s strong public policy in favor of private settlements of disputes. See California Evidence Code Section 1152 and consider adding this statement to the beginning of your demand letter: “The following is a confidential settlement communication pursuant to California Evidence Code Section 1152. Offers of compromise in settlement negotiations are inadmissible to prove liability for loss or damage.”

3 . Alternative Dispute Resolution

Sometimes folks who are disputing a debt are willing to go to mediation or arbitration to keep the dispute out of court. Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedures such as mediation and arbitration are most helpful where there is some disagreement about the outstanding payment, such as who is responsible for a product that fails testing after a distributor fails to quarantine the product appropriately. Mediation is never binding; it is simply the use of an experienced neutral to help the parties reach a compromise. Arbitration can be binding or non-binding and takes the place of a court trial. In both mediation and arbitration, both parties have to agree to participate (though in certain cases with respect to arbitration, a party could be compelled to arbitrate based on a contract clause, for example).

However, ADR is less helpful if the buyer is simply ignoring the seller (aka “radio silence”) or is going out of business (which is unfortunately common in California cannabis), since ADR is most effective when both parties are engaged in the process.

4.  Breach of Contract Lawsuit

If a demand goes unanswered, the next step may be to institute a legal case, a.k.a. litigation. If the farmer takes the buyer to court, the primary “causes of action” or “claims” would likely be related to breach of the agreement to pay money to the farmer for their product and that buyer’s unjust enrichment off of the farmer’s product.

Many farmers “eat” their losses and instead choose not to sue because litigation is costly, stressful, and time consuming, but keep in mind that attorneys’ fees are often in play in breach of contract actions, meaning the party that wins the lawsuit may be able to have their attorneys’ fees added to the other side’s bill. In oral agreements, there is almost never an enforceable agreement for attorneys’ fees- another point in favor of always using a professionally written contract.

5.  Foreclosing on a Security Interest or Producer’s Lien

A security interest is simply collateral from one party to another for an unpaid debt. Security interests can take many forms but the main point is that the farmer (who holds the security interest) may be able to get paid out on a priority basis if the buyer goes out of business and ends up selling off its assets.  We often recommend security interests wherever the sells their entire season in a single transaction under an agreement to pay the farmer at some later date.

In addition to security interests granted in a written purchase agreement, California law thankfully offers farmers an “producer’s lien,” which is a special type of security interest that farmers keep in their product after a buyer takes possession of the product before paying. A producer’s lien is an implied security interest, meaning the parties do not need to have a written contract in place for the lien to exist: it is automatic, provided they do not waive the producer’s lien in any written agreement.

While CDFA does offer an administrative avenue for foreclosing on a producer’s lien, cannabis farmers are not yet eligible to use that option. This means that cannabis farmers can only foreclose their producer’s lien in a civil court at this time. There is no precedent (as far as we’re aware) applying the producer’s lien in the cannabis context, though the law is fairly clear, so we assume this lien will be applied in the cannabis context at some point in the future.

Additionally, the producer’s lien may be extinguished if the buyer sells the product to a third-party, as is often the case with cannabis distributors who are acting as an intermediary (aka middle-man/broker). In such a case, the farmer may want to consider filing an injunction to stop the distributor from selling the cannabis to another party.

Moving forward, we hope written security interests become more common in California’s cannabis purchase agreements, since they offer the farmer the most protection. If a distro or manufacturer is taking the farmer’s entire season in a single transaction without paying at the time of delivery, security interests are a fair request.


In closing, these are worst case scenarios that generally only come into play when the farmer is already under financial stress due to the lack of payment. So the processes for going after an unpaid debt are often shrouded in a cloud of negativity and are not utilized. However, these formal processes are designed to protect sellers from unscrupulous buyers, meaning these systems may suck, but they can be powerful tools to protect farmers from getting ripped off.

Use of a written contract with an attorneys’ fees clause will provide the most protection in the event of non-payment, as the attorneys’ fees clause makes it harder for the buyer to justify the cost of the fight if the case were to proceed through trial and result in a prevailing party attorneys’ fee award. If all of this information is making your head spin, reach out to an attorney knowledgeable about the California cannabis industry and breach of contract actions.

Massive gratitude to Katy M. Young of Ad Astra Law Group LPP in San Francisco, one of Sarah and my favorite civil litigators of all time, for co-authoring this blog with me. Stay safe please!

Heather Burke (Origin Group Law LLP)

To sign up for Origin Group Law LLP’s blog list, please go HERE.

Katy M. Young, Ad Astra Law Group LLP

For Ad Astra Law Group LLP’s blog, please go HERE.

The Humboldt County Cannabis Marketing Assessment: An Overview


While many of us in the world of cannabis agriculture were scurrying about to get our appellation comments in to CDFA last week, Humboldt County also closed its open comment period on a critically important document relating to the future of region-based cannabis marketing within the County: the Humboldt County Cannabis Marketing Assessment.

The marketing assessment is a brilliant document prepared by the Humboldt County Growers Alliance that (1) compares and contrasts various regional-based marketing programs utilized by agricultural-producing communities in other regions, and (2) makes recommendations to Humboldt County to begin the process to identify and implement a formal regional marketing strategy. Notably, the marketing assessment recommends that Humboldt County’s regional marketing strategy be framed as a public-private venture between the County and the local cannabis industry, that a marketing committee be empaneled to ensure tax funds are used appropriately, and the County implement a County-wide stamp/certification mark program, among numerous other recommendations.

Sarah and I submitted lengthy comments in support, which can be found online HERE. Here is an overview of our comments:

Regional and Supply Chain Dynamics: A Farmer-First Approach

Our primary request was that the County employ a “farmer-first” approach in these policy developments. Since a agricultural marketing strategy starts with the farmer, its critical Humboldt County’s cannabis farmers have a strong voice in the shaping of these policies. While everyone in the supply chain (manufacturers, distro, retail, labs) and related stakeholders (the County government, local environmental groups, etc.) must have a meaningful place in these discussion, the economic health of the agricultural origins of the supply chain is critical to a successful regional marketing program.

In addition to the supply chain dynamics, Humboldt County is a massive County with disparate growing regions. Regional dynamics are an asset rather than a liability and, as such, the interplay among the various producing-enclaves in a Countywide program must be addressed head on at the outset.

More Procedural Clarity Needed

Despite attending two of the County’s public input meetings, I’m still unclear as to what the next steps are. Is the County going to approve the marketing strategy as-is or will further public input be taken? We’ve asked the County for more insight and look forward to the County’s response to our procedural questions in the coming weeks.

In any event, the Humboldt County cannabis industry must look closely at the different examples (Kona and Colombian coffee, Napa Valley and Bordeaux wine) and see what fits and what does not. For instance, we need further input from the community as to (1) what level of government-private partnership is appropriate for Humboldt County GIs, i.e. determining the best organizational structure based on the industry’s unique history and its desired roles/responsibilities, and the related issue regarding (2) who owns and who enforces the intellectual property that is the Humboldt County name and the local appellation name, including any related certification marks.

These are not easy questions but thankfully the marketing assessment’s compare and contrast approach offers Humboldt County the opportunity to develop a thoughtful and sophisticated regional marketing strategy based on our unique history and our goals.

The Marketing Assessment as a Baseline  

We believe the marketing assessment is the right first step forward for Humboldt County cannabis to assume its place as a global industry leader, and we asked that the document serve as the baseline from which the County works to enact a robust marketing strategy.

In closing, the Humboldt County Marketing Assessment is the most exciting policy development of the year, in our humble view. Everything cannabis farmers have ever asked for is on the table here (craft market boost, increased value for environmentally sustainable and regionally-based products, equity participation, long game strategy, a united supply chain, government protection/enforcement against interlopers, and so on). Let’s go get it.



Contracts Overview: What Paper to Push? (+ a Sample Purchase Contract). PART 5 OF 5: THE BUSINESS FUNDAMENTALS EVERY CALIFORNIA CANNABIS COMPANY NEEDS TO KNOW.

This final blog in our 5-part series regarding California cannabis contracts focuses on the types of contracts to be used in different scenarios. Here’s a rundown of the most common agreements:


 A purchase or a sale agreement is a contract to buy or sell something. These types of agreements are used most commonly when a distributor or a manufacturer buys a set quantity of cannabis flower, cannabis leaf, or fresh cannabis plant. Purchase agreements can be a one-time transaction, or folks will often style them as “master agreements,” which allow the parties to continue to buy and sell to each other multiple times using only “purchase orders” (which are issued by a buyer) and “invoices” (which are issued by a seller).

Here’s a sample master purchase agreement but BEWARE that this sample is pro-seller or, in other words, this contract includes farmer friendly terms.  Additionally, there is no one-size-fits-all type of contract, so this sample document must be vetted thoroughly before use. Please have your attorney review this document in full before deciding if the deal structure laid out in this agreement makes sense for any particular transaction. All use of the Sample Master Purchase Agreement (Pro-Farmer) is subject to the Terms and Conditions of Use.



 A services agreement is a contract to provide a service or to hire a service. The most common services agreements we see in the California cannabis context are where the distributor or the manufacturer do not take title to the farmer’s cannabis and, instead, perform distribution services or manufacturing services. In such a scenario, the farmer is legally hiring the distributor (usually as an independent contractor) to perform services, such as pickup, storage, lab testing, and so on.


 Many transactions we encounter today are hybrids of a purchase and service agreement, in that the distributor will pick up the cannabis, store it, and perform lab testing, all as a “service” to the farmer (with resulting costs being deducted from the farmer’s sale price), with an additional agreement to buy the cannabis after the lab testing comes in.  Although this is common today, it is often wise to parse out the two agreements into separate documents, i.e. a services agreement and a purchase agreement, so that everyone’s roles remain clear.

The most common difficulty in these types of hybrid purchase/sale agreements is where the distro is hired to perform trimming services, but does not perform the trimming services to the farmer’s quality standards. In such a case, who pays for the loss to the value of the product caused by the distro’s terrible trim job? The way most of these types of deals are currently structured, the farmer has to accept that loss, which would be less likely if the two different relationships (i.e. the service relationship and the buy/sell relationship) were clearly laid out.


 Any time a farmer’s name or logo is used on a jar or a subsequent product, intellectual property agreements are in play, whether the parties realize it or not. If the distro or manufacturer intends to use the farmer’s name or logo, the agreement between the parties (i.e. the purchase agreement or the services agreement) should address whether the buyer can use the farmer’s name or logo.

For more complicated agreements such as a co-branding type of arrangement, such as where the farmer’s name or logo will be prominently displayed, it may make sense to use a totally separate licensing agreement. However, if the use of the farmer’s name or logo will be less prominent, such as where the farmer’s name and license number will be printed on the back of the jar for attribution (i.e. giving credit), then these more simple agreements can be added to the underlying purchase or services agreement.

Don’t forget that use of a farmer’s name and logo can increase the value of a product. As such, additional consideration (i.e. money) to the farmer for use of their intellectual property is always on the table (in other words, it’s totally acceptable to ask for more money if the distro is going to use the farmer’s name or logo to sell the product).


Confidentiality agreements are common in business and can be used wherever two parties are beginning to engage in discussions regarding a potential sale. We often suggest adding a standard NDA to a party’s initial due diligence document review procedures when vetting a potential buyer or seller, so that this protective measure becomes more commonplace in the industry.  At minimum, every California cannabis company should have a standard NDA on hand.


Although there are as many types of contracts as there are ways to structure a transaction, these are the most common agreements California cannabis entrepreneurs will encounter on a regular basis, so it’s wise to be familiar with them.

Huge thank you to Virginia Ryan, my co-author in this blog series whose experience in transactions has been invaluable. I’m deeply grateful for all the knowledge you dropped.

Additional thanks to my business partner and legal guru, Sarah Smale, as well as Lauren Mendelsohn at the Law Offices of Omar Figueroa, Jeffrey Hamilton of Farella, Braun, and Martel, Shay Gilmore of The Law Office of Shay Aaron Gilmore, and Holly Carter of Oxalis Integrative Services all of whom reviewed the sample purchase agreement and gave valuable insight, in addition to Virginia Ryan. I’m deeply grateful.

Happy harvest all. Please stay safe. ~hb

To sign up for Virginia Ryan’s blog list, go here: https://virgielaw.com/contact/

To sign up for Origin Group LLP’s blog list, go here: https://hburkelegal.com/blog/


Intellectual property is a type of law that sets the rules for laying claim to the creations of your mind. Cannabis appellations, i.e. the program which communicates to a consumer that a product’s essence is due to its unique region of production, falls under the ambit of intellectual property.

Intellectual property is one of the most complex, fascinating, and critical areas of law, particularly in today’s zoom-call driven world where internet and electronic connection rule the day.  Cannabis farmers looking to start a cannabis “appellation of origin” in their region must take the time to develop a thoughtful strategy for the ownership and use of their most precious intellectual property (“IP”) asset: the appellation name. Here’s a quick overview of the IP assets in play in cannabis appellations:

Ownership of Cannabis Appellation Intellectual Property

While no two situations are ever identical, it is likely that the appellation ownership will be structured as an entity (an LLC, a corporation, a Mutual Benefit Corporation, a B corporation, a Social Purpose Corporation, a state nonprofit, etc.).  The founding members of the appellation (the three or more unique businesses as dictated by the draft regulations) will likely be the owners of the appellation name. It is also likely that the ownership of the entity will be the respective farmers’ operating companies, though not necessarily.

There is an open question as to how newcomers to the appellation will be authorized to use the appellation name.  In any event, once compliance with the appellation’s standards is established in the appropriate manner, a seal or certification mark could be used, and/or the appellation name could simply be used on the label. These very important procedural question may be up to the appellations themselves depending on their goals.

Lack of Certification Marks

In a perfect world, an appellation entity would also seek a certification mark for the appellation’s standards and practices from the state or federal government. Certification marks, however, do not currently exist in state law, and cannabis farmers can’t access federal certification marks because of cannabis’s Schedule 1 status.

For now, farmers seeking to use an appellation name will need to establish that they meet the appellation standards. The specific process for proving that the farmer meets the appellation’s standards will depend on how the request to use the appellation name is made and whether meeting the appellation’s standards is acknowledged by contract or simply by use of a certification mark or seal.

While the lack of certification marks does present logistical issues for cannabis appellations, the example of Napa Valley may be helpful. Napa Valley is a different type of appellation that was granted by the government in 1980. However, Napa Valley did not seek a certification mark until 2011, over two decades later, and even then, the certification mark was not successfully granted until 2015. The implication is that, while certification marks are important, cannabis appellations will be able to build the appellation’s brand using the appellation name only, so cannabis appellations should not be substantially held back by the current lack of complimentary certification marks.

Thankfully, numerous appellation policy groups are working to include cannabis-certification marks in further statutory or regulatory cleanup packages, so we should see certification marks applied to cannabis far sooner than they were applied to wine, at least in the Napa Valley.

Use of the Intellectual Property

In any event, once the farmers meet the appellation’s standards of use, that farmer may use the appellation name on their products.  The farmers’ will presumably be tasked with protecting their own farm-specific name and logo through trademark or copyright protection, as applicable.

Due to the anticipated use of both an appellation name and a farm name on a product’s label, we can expect to see regulations or agreements arise regarding “conjunctive labeling,” which is labeling where the county, appellation, and any smaller appellation may or must also be listed in addition to the farm’s name.

Defining Other Terms Used in Labeling

Finally, it is unclear whether common labeling terms such as “regenerative” or “single batch” will be included in the name of the appellation, or will arise from certification marks, or from policy changes, but we can expect to see exciting developments in that area in the coming years.

What You Can Do

In closing, cannabis farmers seeking to start an appellation need to be thinking about the following IP assets, who owns them, and how they should be used in labeling or marketing the cannabis: (1) an appellation  name or the name of a geographic region that is likely to become an appellation, (2) the farmer’s farm-specific name or logo, and (3) labeling terms such as “regenerative,” or “estate grown.”

Wise farmers hoping to start an appellation should have a comprehensive plan to address each of these critical components of a successful intellectual property strategy before filing for their appellation petition.

As the state’s 15-day comment period for its current round of cannabis appellation regulations draws to a close today at midnight, please get involved! One of the biggest concerns seems to be the state’s favorable characterization of reputational-based appellations, which works against the terroir-baseline recently imposed by statute. We thank the following trade and/or policy organizations for taking a front seat in this quick-moving policy development and ask interested parties to reach to the following groups for further information and to assist with comments:

Thank you to Shabnam Malek, one of the best intellectual property lawyers in the cannabis space, for co-authoring this blog with me. Please stay safe all!

Heather Burke (Origin Group Law LLP)

To sign up for Origin Group Law LLP’s blog list, please go HERE.

Shabnam Malek (Brand & Branch LLP)

To sign up for Brand & Branch’s blog list, please go HERE.