Better Made vs. Cannabis Companies: A Michigan Trademark Dispute
Summary
Better Made, is embroiled in a legal battle with over a dozen cannabis businesses in the state. The lawsuit, filed in March 2024, centers on allegations of trademark infringement. Better Made claims a cannabis brand named “Better Smoke” is using a logo confusingly similar to their own, potentially misleading consumers and damaging their brand reputation.
Trademark Infringement Claims
Better Made asserts that the “Better Smoke” logo replicates key elements of their established trademark. This includes a similar design layout and potentially the use of a similar color scheme. The lawsuit argues that this similarity is likely to cause consumer confusion, leading people to believe the cannabis products are somehow affiliated with Better Made potato chips.
Protecting Brand Identity
The core of Better Made’s case rests on the concept of trademark infringement. Trademarks are symbols or designs that identify a specific source of goods or services. By establishing a trademark, companies gain legal protection against others using confusingly similar marks that could mislead consumers.
Dangers of Dilution
Beyond simply avoiding confusion, Better Made also claims trademark dilution. This legal concept protects against uses that weaken the distinctiveness of a brand, even if there’s no immediate confusion. In this case, Better Made argues that the “Better Smoke” brand chips away at the unique identity they’ve built for their own products.
Legal Repercussions
Better Made seeks both monetary damages and an injunction. An injunction is a court order prohibiting the defendants from using the allegedly infringing logo. If successful, this could force the “Better Smoke” brand to redesign its packaging and marketing materials.
The Road Ahead
The outcome of this lawsuit will be closely watched by businesses in both the food and cannabis industries. A win for Better Made could set a precedent for how established brands can protect themselves from potential confusion caused by cannabis businesses using similar names or logos.
Real Questions from Real Calls
Question: I smoked several joints and consumed too many marijuana edibles at a concert in the park. Is that legal??
Answer: If it was not a state licensed consumption event the answer is no. It is unlawful to smoke marijuana in public places. The Gov needs to get their cut.
333.27954 Scope of act; unauthorized activities with marihuana and marihuana accessories; limitations; application of privileges, rights, immunities, and defenses under other marihuana laws; employer rights; property owner rights.
Sec. 4. 1. This act does not authorize:
(e) consuming marihuana in a public place or smoking marihuana where prohibited by the person who owns, occupies, or manages the property, except for purposes of this subdivision a public place does not include an area designated for consumption within a municipality that has authorized consumption in designated areas that are not accessible to persons under 21 years of age;
Read the Law
https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/mcl/pdf/mcl-Initiated-Law-1-of-2018.pdf
Related Articles
$87 million in adult-use marijuana payments to be sent out across Michigan
The Michigan Department of Treasury today announced that more than $87 million is being distributed among 269 municipalities and counties as a part of the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana Act. Over the next few days, 99 cities, 30 villages, 69 townships...
Protest about marijuana and tobacco sales to kids
Protest about marijuana and tobacco sales to kidsWatch the report here on Channel 7 WXYZ TV Detroit (who disabled the embedding feature)Related ArticlesMore Posts
Michigan: No Evidence of Widespread Discriminatory Policing Practices
No Evidence of Widespread Discriminatory Policing PracticesNever Ending Quest January 18, 2024 In the department’s continuing work to research and address racial disparities in traffic stops, independent consulting firm CNA has determined that racial disparities...
DEA – AG Miss Deadline to Respond on Cannabis Rescheduling
The Drug Enforcement Administration persists in maintaining secrecy around their process, disregarding a congressional request for transparency.Never Ending StoryThe Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and Attorney General Merrick Garland missed a Feb. 12 deadline...
More Posts
Michigan Court of Appeals – Case Summary People v Bosworth
Michigan Court of Appeals - People v. Bosworth Despite these efforts, the jury found the evidence...
Michigan Court of Appeals – Case Analysis People v. Jackson
Michigan Court of Appeals - People v MICHAEL JACKSON Several critical legal issues emerged during...
Michigan Supreme Court restores wage and sick leave laws
Citizen-initiated proposals aimed at increasing the minimum wage and expanding paid sick leave In...
SCOTUS Decision Gives Starbucks a Win in Labor Dispute
The decision underscored the principle that only activities that are essential and directly...
People v. Bosworth – A Murder Conviction and Its Aftermath
Michigan Court of Appeals: People v. Bosworth The case took a dark turn during the early hours of...
Cannabis workers claimed employer violated labor laws
Allegedly had to put on company-issued personal protective equipment (“PPE”) (such as masks, hair...
The MSP is Concerned About Your Privacy (Firearms)
Is the Michigan State Police really concerned about your DNA / biometric privacy?Here's what they...
Michigan Supreme Court – Forfeiture of 2006 Saturn ION
FORFEITURE OF 2006 SATURN IONMichigan Supreme Court Ruling - July 25, 2025 The Michigan Supreme...
The MSP is Concerned About Your Privacy (Vehicle Information)
Is the Michigan State Police really concerned about your Driver License and Motor Vehicle...
The MSP is Concerned About Your Privacy (Biometric Information)
Is the Michigan State Police really concerned about your DNA / biometric privacy?Here's what they...