IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—S.D. Cal.: Nutritional supplement seller’s ‘LIVE RESIN’ mark claims survive cannabis company’s dismissal challenge, (Aug 18, 2026)

By Saurabh Kashyap, B.A., M.A., LL.B., LL.M.

Registered trademark rights and alleged similarities between the parties’ products plausibly supported consumer confusion.

A federal district court in California has largely denied a cannabis products company’s motion to dismiss a nutritional supplement seller’s lawsuit over the LIVE RESIN mark. The court allowed the seller’s federal and state trademark infringement and unfair competition claims and its declaratory relief claim to proceed, finding sufficient allegations of protectable trademark rights and likely consumer confusion. However, it dismissed the standalone injunctive relief claim because an injunction was a remedy rather than an independent cause of action, and dismissed the request for treble damages because the accused REFINED LIVE RESIN marks were not identical or substantially indistinguishable from LIVE RESIN (PurBlack, Inc. v. Central Coast Agriculture, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-03654-H-MMP (S.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2026)).

Background. PurBlack, Inc. sells nutritional supplements, plant-extract ingredients, and skincare preparations. Central Coast Agriculture, Inc. markets cannabis-related products. Both companies used branding incorporating the words “LIVE RESIN.”

PurBlack owned three USPTO registrations for LIVE RESIN: Registration No. 4643806 for dietary, health food, nutritional and mineral supplements in International Class 5; Registration No. 7342152 for plant-extract ingredients in Class 1; and Registration No. 7198610 for skincare preparations in Class 3. Each registration identified September 9, 2012, as the first-use date. Central Coast used “Live Resin” to market products and filed several trademark applications incorporating the term, including applications for REFINED LIVE RESIN in Class 30.

PurBlack alleged that it began sending cease-and-desist letters to Central Coast in August 2021 and filed oppositions to its marks before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in October 2022. Two oppositions involving REFINED LIVE RESIN remained pending. PurBlack alleged that customers had complained of confusion between the companies’ products and that association with cannabis products harmed its reputation as a seller of high-end nutritional supplements. PurBlack sued in December 2025 for federal and California trademark infringement and unfair competition, injunctive relief and declaratory relief. Central Coast moved under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the complaint in its entirety.

Trademark claims. The court held that PurBlack plausibly pled both a protectable ownership interest and likelihood of confusion. PurBlack’s three federal registrations entitled it to a presumption of validity, and Central Coast did not dispute its ownership of those registrations.

Applying the likelihood-of-confusion factors from AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1979), the court found sufficient allegations concerning the proximity of the goods, similarity of the marks, and overlapping marketing channels. Central Coast argued that the parties operated under different regulatory regimes and sold fundamentally different products. The court nevertheless found enough similarity at the pleading stage because both allegedly sold ingestible products incorporating plant extracts to health-conscious consumers, and both had approved or pending applications in Class 30. A reasonable jury could therefore find their goods related or marketed to similar purchasers.

Mark strength. Central Coast argued that “live resin” was generic or descriptive when used in the cannabis industry. The court declined to resolve that issue on a motion to dismiss. Citing Zobmondo Entertainment, LLC v. Falls Media, LLC, 602 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), it explained that federal registration created a strong presumption that the mark was not generic and imposed a heavy burden on a party seeking to overcome that presumption.

Moreover, even if LIVE RESIN was not inherently distinctive, PurBlack alleged that the mark had acquired secondary meaning. Whether the term was generic or had acquired secondary meaning raised factual questions that were premature at the pleading stage.

Consumer confusion. The court also rejected Central Coast’s contention that its use of REFINED LIVE RESIN as part of composite marks eliminated similarity. The marks shared the identical words LIVE RESIN, and adding a house mark or another word did not necessarily prevent infringement.

PurBlack also alleged that customers had already complained that they were confused about the difference between the companies’ products. Although the existing record provided insufficient information to determine consumer care, Central Coast’s intent, or likely product expansion, the court found that those considerations did not defeat the claims at the pleading stage. The allegations concerning similar marks, potentially related goods, overlapping customers, and actual confusion plausibly supported a likelihood of confusion. The federal and California trademark infringement and unfair competition claims therefore survived.

Declaratory relief. The court also allowed PurBlack’s declaratory relief claim to proceed. PurBlack sought determinations that Central Coast had no trademark interest in LIVE RESIN, that PurBlack possessed incontestable rights in the mark, and that Central Coast should abandon trademark applications containing the term.

Citing Allstate Insurance Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2011), the court found that the requested declaration could clarify the parties’ prospective trademark rights. Unlike the infringement claims, which principally addressed the consequences of Central Coast’s alleged past conduct, declaratory relief could determine future obligations concerning pending trademark applications and TTAB proceedings.

Injunctive relief. The court dismissed PurBlack’s separate claim for injunctive relief under 15 U.S.C. §1116 because an injunction constituted a remedy rather than an independent cause of action. The dismissal did not prevent PurBlack from obtaining an injunction if it ultimately succeeded on its surviving trademark claims.

Treble damages. Finally, the court dismissed PurBlack’s request for treble damages under 15 U.S.C. §1117(b). Citing Arcona, Inc. v. Farmacy Beauty, LLC, 976 F.3d 1074 (9th Cir. 2020), the court explained that the enhanced remedy applied to counterfeiting, which required use of a spurious mark identical or substantially indistinguishable from a registered mark.

PurBlack alleged that Central Coast used confusingly and deceptively similar marks, but those allegations did not amount to counterfeiting. The addition of “Refined” to REFINED LIVE RESIN meant the accused marks were not identical or substantially indistinguishable from LIVE RESIN, and the complaint contained no express counterfeiting allegations. The treble-damages request therefore could not proceed.

The Case is No. 3:25-cv-03654-H-MMP.

Judge: Huff, M.

Attorneys: Lisel Ferguson (Rimon PC) for PurBlack, Inc. Jeffrey John Zuber (Zuber Lawler LLP) for Central Coast Agriculture, Inc.

Companies: PurBlack, Inc.; Central Coast Agriculture, Inc.

Cases: Trademark CaliforniaNews USPTO