, , , , , , , ,

The Plaintiff, Stash Tea Company, has been in the business of merchandising, supplying and selling high quality tea and tea related products since the early 1970s. They are headquartered in Tigard, Oregon, with a Tea Bar in North Portland. Plaintiff owns several trademark registration for STASH, including the following:

U.S. Reg. No. 4,868,446 for STASH covering “On-line wholesale and retail store services featuring dried plants and tea; Wholesale and retail store services featuring dried plants and tea”


Defendant, Stash Cannabis Company, is a marijuana dispensary in Beaverton, Oregon (for those not from Portland, Beaverton and Tigard are really close.) They opened in September 2015.
Screen Shot 2016-04-21 at 7.50.35 AM

Plaintiff has alleged no instances of actual confusion in the Complaint (below) but apparently doesn’t like another STASH nearby.

Does Plaintiff’s trademark registration for “dried plants” extend to marijuana flowers? Keep in mind Plaintiff has never sold marijuana flowers, dry or otherwise. The very broad and somewhat vague “dried plants” description was not challenged by a USPTO Examining Attorney but could leave the relatively new registration open to reexamination or cancellation.

Stay tuned for updates.

Universal Tea Company, Inc., dba Stash Tea Company v. Stash Cannabis Company, LLC et al

Court Case Number: 3:16-cv-00685
File Date: Wednesday, April 20, 2016
Plaintiff: Universal Tea Company, Inc. d/b/a Stash Tea Company
Plaintiff Counsel: Susan D. Pitchford, Amelia S. Forsberg of Chernoff Vilhauer LLP
Defendant: Stash Cannabis Company, LLC, Chris Matthews
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, Passing Off, Federal Trademark Dilution, State Trademark Dilution, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Unlawful Trade Practices
Judge: Marco A. Hernandez