Four 20 Pharma
too close to code for
Cannabis.
Four 20 Pharma
too close to code for
Cannabis.
of
Is it sufficient for a term to be understood only by experts for a trademark to lack distinctiveness? Can a subculture code like “4 20” ever be protected as a trademark? What are the implications of this decision for companies seeking to register trademarks in the cannabis pharmaceutical sector?
What’s it about?
A company filed an application for the “Four 20 Pharma” mark as a word mark with the German Patent and Trademark Office on March 14, 2022. The application originally covered goods and services in Classes 5, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, and 42.
The Trademark Division for Class 5 of the German Patent and Trademark Office partially rejected the application by decision dated February 28, 2023. The rejection affected numerous goods in Class 5 related to pharmaceuticals or medicine, commercial and advertising services in Class 35, and research services in Class 42, to the extent that they were related to cannabis. The remaining classes covered by the application were not affected by the rejection. In its reasoning, the Trademark Division stated that the number sequence “420” and its written variant “Four 20” are used in common parlance as a reference to the consumption of cannabis.
On April 4, 2023, the applicant filed an appeal against this decision with the Federal Patent Court. She argued that the origin and exact meaning of the number sequence “420” were unclear, and that the relevant circles in the medical and pharmaceutical fields did not associate the term with the consumer culture of illegal cannabis use. Furthermore, the addition of “Pharma” distanced the mark from a scene-specific interpretation and conferred the necessary distinctiveness on the mark as a whole.
Decision of the Federal Patent Court
The 25th Senate of the Federal Patent Court dismissed the appeal on the grounds that Decision of July 2, 2026 – Case No. 25 W (pat) 533/23 Back.
The Senate assumed that the trademark consisted of two components: “Four 20” and “Pharma.” The first component, in various spellings such as 420, 4:20, or 4/20, is an established code for cannabis use and is frequently used to identify with cannabis culture. The fact that the exact history of the expression’s origin has not been conclusively clarified does not preclude this. Vague or ambiguous origins do not deprive catchphrase-like terms of their descriptive effect, because such terms serve precisely to capture a topic in general terms. The Senate interpreted the second component, “Pharma,” as a common abbreviation for pharmaceutical products without any independent additional meaning. When combined, the mark conveys the meaning “cannabis-based medicines.”
relevant public
Central to the decision was the question of which relevant public should be taken into account for the assessment. The Senate expressly acknowledged that the term “420” was not widely known to the general public. However, this did not apply to the relevant specialized public in the medical and pharmaceutical fields. This group is generally sufficiently informed about terminology in the context of the substances it manufactures, trades in, and researches—including colloquial terms or code words, even if these originally originated from the illegal sphere. To support this assessment, the Senate itself researched examples from pharmacy practice, such as pharmacy product names like “420brokkoli” or “Remedium420,” as well as a technical article from a telemedicine platform on “420 Day.”
According to the case law of the highest court, even the perception of the relevant trade circles—which are considered a key segment of the relevant public—is sufficient to preclude trademark registration.
In the Senate’s view, it is therefore sufficient that experts alone recognize the descriptive nature of the sign; an understanding by the general public is not required.
On this basis, the Senate affirmed that there was a descriptive connection to virtually all of the rejected goods and services. In the case of goods that could explicitly contain cannabis, the connection was obvious. With regard to commercial services, established case law holds that there is, in any event, a close descriptive connection to the goods being traded. Even with regard to advertising services and business management, the Senate found a descriptive element because, in its view, the term referred not only to a single product but to an entire business sector, namely the manufacture and distribution of cannabis-based medicines. Even in the case of mineral water and mineral salts, the Senate found a sufficient connection because these products could be used in the cultivation of cannabis plants.
The Senate expressly left open the question of whether the ground for refusal based on a descriptive indication also applied, because the lack of distinctiveness was sufficient in itself to justify the rejection.
Conclusion
The decision makes it clear that the understanding of those skilled in the art is, in and of itself, sufficient to deny a trademark distinctiveness.
However, it remains open to critical scrutiny on what empirical basis such an understanding of the field is established, given that the court essentially gathers the relevant evidence itself from the Internet.
It also remains unclear whether extending the descriptive reference to goods such as mineral water does not already exceed the limits of what is considered a reasonable market perception.
We are happy to
advise you about
Trademark law!
