Skip to content 
Snoop Dogg has spent decades building one of the most recognizable cannabis brands in the world. So when his company tried to trademark the phrase “Smoke Weed Everyday” — a line tied to his image since “The Next Episode” dropped in 2000 — it seemed like a natural move.
The USPTO said no.
The refusal isn’t just a celebrity headline. It’s one of the clearest real-world examples of how trademark law actually works, especially for brands operating in or near the cannabis space. Here’s what happened and what business owners can take away from it.
What Snoop’s Team Applied For
His company, DR ETC HOLDCO LLC, filed a trademark application covering a wide range of goods and services — retail and online cannabis stores, hemp-derived products, edibles like brownies, cookies, and gummies, aromatherapy items, oils, and even goods connected to psychedelic-assisted therapy.
The USPTO issued an Office Action on March 10, 2026, refusing the application on two separate grounds.
Refusal #1: The Phrase Doesn’t Function as a Trademark
A trademark has one job: to tell consumers that a product comes from a specific source. Think Nike, Apple, or Coca-Cola. Those names point to one company.
“Smoke Weed Everyday” doesn’t do that. The USPTO found the phrase already in widespread use across countless unrelated sellers on platforms like Amazon and Redbubble. When a phrase shows up on merchandise from dozens of different sources, consumers don’t read it as a brand — they read it as a cultural expression.
This is different from the classic “ornamental” refusal people often hear about. The issue here was that the phrase had already become too common in public discourse for any one company to claim exclusive rights to it. The USPTO referenced similar rulings involving phrases like “Everybody vs Racism” and “No More RINOs” — both rejected for the same reason.
What makes this particularly tough: the usual workarounds don’t apply. When a phrase fails to function as a trademark, you can’t fix it by arguing it’s acquired distinctiveness, moving to the Supplemental Register, or submitting different specimens. The door is closed.
Refusal #2: Federal Law and the Cannabis Problem
The second refusal is one that trips up cannabis brands constantly, and it doesn’t matter how famous you are.
To register a federal trademark, you have to show lawful use in commerce. If the goods or services in your application violate federal law, the USPTO can’t grant you trademark rights — full stop.
Several products in Snoop’s application, particularly the edibles containing Delta-9 THC, ran into the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The FDA has not approved cannabis-derived ingredients as safe food additives, which means selling those products across state lines is unlawful under federal law. No lawful use, no trademark.
This is the core tension for anyone building a cannabis brand right now. State laws have moved quickly. Federal law hasn’t. And because the USPTO is a federal agency, it operates by federal rules regardless of what’s happening at the state level.
Is the Application Dead?
Not necessarily. The USPTO actually suggested a path forward.
Snoop’s team could amend the application to remove the goods that trigger federal law issues. They could narrow the description of certain products — for example, specifying that “essential oils” are non-ingestible and cosmetic rather than therapeutic. They could refocus the application on categories that don’t run into FDCA problems at all.
Many cannabis-adjacent brands take exactly this approach. They file trademarks for entertainment, media, apparel, and lifestyle services — categories that are federally lawful and provide real protection for the brand, even if the core cannabis products can’t be registered yet.
That said, the phrase itself remains a harder problem. A phrase this embedded in popular culture is genuinely difficult to claim as a trademark, regardless of how closely it’s associated with one person.
What This Means If You’re Building a Brand
You don’t have to be in the cannabis space for this case to be relevant. There are a few lessons here that apply broadly.
Popular phrases are hard to own. The more a phrase circulates in public culture, the harder it becomes to claim exclusive rights to it. A trademark needs to point to you — not to a cultural moment everyone shares.
What you list in your application matters enormously. One ineligible product can jeopardize an entire filing. Being careful and precise about your goods and services description isn’t just a technicality — it’s strategy.
If you’re in cannabis, a layered approach is your best option. Secure your company name. Protect your logo. File for the non-restricted parts of your brand ecosystem. Monitor the regulatory landscape, because federal law will eventually catch up to reality — and you want to be positioned when it does.
Trademark law moves slower than culture. Snoop Dogg’s situation is really just a clear illustration of that gap. Building a smart brand protection strategy means working within the law as it exists today, not as you’d like it to be.
About Indie Law, A Trademark Law Firm:
Indie Law, A Trademark Law Firm is a trademark firm dedicated to helping small businesses, creative entrepreneurs, and online brands protect and grow their identities. With innovative year-long plans and flat-fee packages, the firm provides accessible legal support to clients across the United States and worldwide. Contact: +1 312-766-6889.