Hemp group in cybersquatting clash
Illinois-based firm accuses hemp group of cybersquatting | US Court for the District of Colorado.
Illinois-based Global Hemp has accused a Utah-based not-for-profit organisation of cybersquatting and counterfeiting.
In a suit filed on August 7 at the US District Court for the District of Colorado, Global Hemp alleged that Global Hemp Association (GHA) and its directors are infringing its trademarks and engaging in unfair competition.
“Despite being put on notice of their infringing activities, defendants engaged in their tortious conduct, even presenting a seminar with a speaker from Colorado and, upon information and belief, soliciting ‘sponsorships’ from Colorado entities, and presenting awards banquets in Colorado,” said the complaint.
According to the suit, Global Hemp started up in the mid-1990s, and currently operates a retail store with hemp products, has its own hemp product lines, offers hemp processing machinery, and provides horticultural consulting services.
Alongside several URLS, including www.globalhemp.com, Global Hemp has registered several eponymous trademarks at the US Patent and Trademark Office.
“Since passage of the 2018 Farm Bill, making the cultivation of hemp federally legal, the number of new entrants into the hemp industry has exploded,” said the suit.
“While many are legitimate businesses and organisations, some are not. And while some respect others’ intellectual property rights, others do not. This case involves an organisation, and its board, in the latter category."
‘Intentional’ infringement
Global Hemp allegedly reached out via a cease-and-desist letter and phone calls, but GHA has reportedly continued to infringe the trademarks and use the globalhempassociation.org domain.
“Global Hemp has not authorised GHA to use its Global Hemp marks, let alone as the primary, dominant, portion of a domain name,” the plaintiff argued.
It added: “GHA intentionally registered and used the infringing domain names to divert consumers from Global Hemp’s website to websites accessible under the infringing domain for GHA’s commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of GHA’s websites.”
Global Hemp has asked the court to find that GHA actions have violated the Anti- Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act and constitute unfair competition, and that GHA has infringed Global Hemp’s trademarks.
The company has also asked for a transfer of any infringing domain names, inductive relief, an account of profits, and damages.
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories sent like this straight to your inbox.
