Hemp ‘entourage’ trademark dispute widens as companies jostle over use of term

A long-simmering trademark dispute over the word “entourage” got wider this week, with one company asking others in the hemp industry to share how they use the term.

Full Spectrum Nutrition, a CBD manufacturer in Colorado Springs, Colorado, is calling for other businesses to help it challenge a 2016 trademark on the phrase “entourage hemp.”

The trademark belongs to Cannoid, a Denver-based CBD manufacturer that sells tinctures, softgels and vape products under the brand Entourage Hemp.

Full Spectrum argues in a lawsuit that the term “entourage” is too commonly used in the cannabis industry to be eligible for trademark protection and that Cannoid’s trademark amounts to “an immediate danger to the entire U.S. cannabis industry.”

“The term ‘entourage’ is descriptive and/or generic and not entitled to trademark protection,” according to Full Spectrum’s suit.

Attorneys for Full Spectrum and Cannoid did not immediately return calls for comment from Hemp Industry Daily about the legal dispute, which is pending in federal court in Denver.

The “entourage effect” refers to the interaction of cannabinoid molecules, a phenomenon thought by some to be necessary for maximizing cannabis’ therapeutic benefits.

(Not all scientists agree about the importance of the “entourage effect.” For a detailed look at the debate, check out this August story in Marijuana Business Magazine.)

Subscribe to our Newsletter

3 comments on “Hemp ‘entourage’ trademark dispute widens as companies jostle over use of term
  1. Hemp Oil Man on

    This lawsuit against Cannoid has strong merit. They have no legal right to exclusive proprietary ownership of the word “Entourage “ as it relates to hemp. Every hemp company should resist Cannoid’s improper trademark and read the cross complaint and join the lawsuit to prevent others from trying to do the same thing with other common phrases.

  2. Duane on

    I just was told the word “hempster” is trademarked. I would offer the same arguments regarding its lack of trademark eligibility.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *