Consumer Products + Manufacturing

Consumer Products + Manufacturing


California Cannabis Appellation Program

May 7, 2021 Articles
MG Magazine

The specific location of a product’s origin is more important with some products than others.  Wine is the classic example, as the dirt and surrounding climate in which grapes are grown can have a profound effect on the nature and quality of the end product.  A designation such as “Russian River Valley” in Sonoma, therefore, does more than just stroke the vanity of the given region—it sets and helps to preserve customers’ expectations regarding products’ location-related qualities and characteristics.  Thus, a regional appellation functions similarly to a trademark – albeit one used by multiple different producers. 

Cannabis cultivators have long argued that a specific growing region similarly affects the characteristics of cannabis products, and in a 2016 bill, the California state legislature directed the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) to establish a similar Cannabis Appellation Program (CAP) for cannabis growing regions in the state.  The CAP will allow regional groups of cannabis cultivators to apply for the establishment of a regional appellation that would identify the origin and source of their products and to limit the use of that appellation to certain producers whose products meet specific requirements.  Such appellations will allow cannabis produced in well-known regions, such as Humboldt, to command a higher price than that grown in other areas.  This is particularly important in the cannabis industry, where producers are often restricted under federal law, and therefore less likely to qualify for federal trademark registration than their peers in the wine industry.  For such producers, the ability to distinguish themselves and their neighbors from competitors through appellation and similar programs has outsized importance for their business and marketing strategy.

In addition to bolstering the market for cannabis products from particular regions, and providing consumers the ability to distinguish between products cultivated in a particular locale, the CAP creates an incentive for growers in a particular region to work together to promote their products, establish regional credentials, and maintain a minimum quality standard.  With these goals in mind, the CDFA published its first iteration of the CAP guidelines in February 2020.  Those guidelines set forth a proposed framework by which licensed cannabis cultivators could create their regional appellations. 

Among other things, the February 2020 regulations established the following elements of the CAP:

Petition Fees.  A $20,880 fee to establish an appellation of origin (since modified to be a $14,250 proposal fee, accompanied by a $2,850 petition submission fee); and a $10,440 fee to amend an existing appellation (since modified to be a $7,125 proposal fee, accompanied by a $1,425 petition submission fee).  The CDFA will not begin to review any petitions until these fees are paid in full.  Thus, cannabis cultivators seeking to establish regional appellations will need to invest upfront and develop financial and business relationships with fellow cultivators in their regions.

Collaboration Among Businesses.  Each petition must be completed by a group of at least three (3) unique, licensed cultivators within the proposed region (which the CAP defines as a “petitioning organization,” whether or not a formal “organization” exists).  This means that the proposed regulations put an emphasis on collaboration between different cannabis businesses because one business with three different licenses cannot file for a single petition.  According to the CDFA, greater consensus-building in a proposed cannabis appellation of origin is critical to avoid creating appellations with overly specific or burdensome requirements, or that favor a particular cultivator over others. 

Contents of Petition. The proposed regulations set forth a vast amount of information, detailed in ten specific categories, that must be included in each petition.  Among other things, petitioners must provide:

  • A general description and location of proposed geographical area, which may include information such as total acreage of the area, total canopy acreage that is currently occupied under licensed commercial cultivation, estimated canopy acreage eligible to use proposed appellation of origin, and any other information to place the appellation in context.
  • Description of the boundary of the proposed appellation of origin and USGS topographical maps depicting the boundary.
  • Description of each distinctive geographical feature affecting cannabis cultivation in the area, including substantial evidence that the geographical area is distinct compared to other areas that produce cannabis, and identification of at least one specific standard, practice, or cultivar requirement which acts to preserve the distinctiveness of the area.
  • Identification and definition of all standard, practice, and cultivar requirements.
  • Description and evidence of the legacy, history, and economic importance of cannabis cultivation in the area.
  • List of the cultivator license types issued by the CDFA (such as Indoor, Mixed-light Tier 1, Mixed-light Tier 2, or Outdoor), which are prohibited from using the appellation of origin.

Panel Review Process. Each completed petition will be reviewed by a seven-person Petition Review Panel, which will review and provide a recommendation on the petition to the CDFA.  Members of the Petition Review Panel are required to be California residents with relevant experience in cannabis cultivation, intellectual property, sustainable agriculture, or community-based research.

Notice of Use; Record-Keeping. A licensed cultivator is required to submit a “Notice of Use” to the CDFA within thirty (30) days of its use of its appellation of origin.  Thereafter, the licensed cultivators are required to maintain records for at least seven (7) years that demonstrate that cannabis was produced in the geographical area of the appellation of origin in accordance with applicable standards, practices, and cultivar requirements.

In September of 2020, California State Senate Bill 67 updated the CAP in a few key ways:

  • First, unlike the original CAP, SB 67 expanded the definition of a geographic region, to allow for more nuanced geographic designations.  While the statute previously allowed designation of a “county of origin,” the new bill made it possible for cultivators to designate a “county, city, or city and county of origin.”  For example, certain cannabis cultivators could not only create an appellation to identify their product as being from “Humboldt County,” but could also potentially identify their product as being from “Eureka” (a city within Humboldt County), and could work to develop greater cachet for producers from that city. 
  • Second, it would only allow a cultivator to use a particular designation if 100 percent of the cannabis is produced within the designated region.  Specifically, it states that cannabis is produced within a designated region only if all cultivation (including planting, growing, harvesting, drying, curing, grading, and trimming), starting from the time the cannabis plants were taller or wider than 18 inches, was conducted within the appellation boundary and according to the appellation’s standard and cultivar requirements.
  • Third, it prohibited a cannabis cultivator from falsely promoting a cannabis product as having been produced in a particular region (or from using any marketing or advertising that is likely to mislead consumers about the type of cannabis it contains, whether or not the cultivator makes any explicit statements about its origin). It also applies these rules not just to the packaging of cannabis products, but also to marketing and advertising of their product (the rule specifically exempts any trademark which was registered with the California Secretary of State or U.S. Patent and Trademark Office prior to February 21, 2020).
  • Fourth, it expressly excludes from the appellation program those cannabis products that are grown indoors (such as in a greenhouse) or using certain practices such as the application of artificial light. Thus, those promoting their product using a regional appellation will need to be careful to ensure that their practices conform to more “natural” requirements, in order for the appellation to apply.

Since SB 67 went into effect, the CDFA has continued to move forward with implementing the CAP, and on March 5, 2021, it released several additional proposed regulatory modifications.  Most of these modifications are relatively minor: adjusting the method by which cultivators must submit their petitions, defining specific penalties for violations, or addressing procedural elements of the program.  The release of these modifications marks the official start of a public comment period, which extends until 11:59 pm on March 26, 2021.

Groups of cultivators seeking to establish an Appellation of Origin may submit a petition to the CDFA which contains a “general description and location of the proposed geographical area” that would be subject to the appellation.  The description must contain a number of specific items, including (1) a description and evidence of distinctive geographical features that affect regional cannabis cultivation, (2) an identification of the proposed appellation’s standard, practice, and cultivar requirements, and (3) a description of cannabis cultivation in the region, including its “legacy, history, and economic importance.”  Importantly, they must show that the proposed appellation name has already been used in direct association with a cannabis production area.

While it is possible we will see additional regulations or amendments before implementation is finalized, cultivators interested in a regional appellation would be wise to begin working now, along with other cultivators and stakeholders within their region, to establish a record of the appellation’s use and to begin planning their petitions.

Firm Highlights


How to Comply With the TCPA After the Facebook Supreme Court Decision

Many consumer products industry companies rely heavily on text messaging marketing programs to reach their customers and to create loyalty in an increasingly competitive market. While text messaging programs may be an effective marketing tool...

Read More

What’s Ahead for California Wine Industry With Laws and Regulations - Q&A

More than wine, area lawyers specializing in the wine business have been forced in the past year to take on a number of critical issues. That includes regulations that were put in place to help...

Read More

Kelly Matayoshi Joins UC Hastings Law Center for Litigation and Courts Advisory Board

Farella Braun + Martel is proud to announce that partner Kelly Matayoshi has joined the five-member advisory board for the UC Hastings Law Center for Litigation and Courts .  The nonpartisan Center for Litigation...

Read More

Kelly Matayoshi Appointed to San Francisco Superior Court Elimination of Bias Committee

Read More

Top 10 Practical Business Implications Arising From the Passage of the CPRA

California’s Proposition 24 passed as expected, and the new California Privacy Rights Act will change the privacy landscape created by the California Consumer Protection Act (CCPA), which went into effect only months ago. While...

Read More

The FASTER Act: What Companies Need To Know About the New Food Allergy Law

While the Food Allergy Safety, Treatment, Education, and Research Act (FASTER Act) only makes a minor change to add sesame as a major food allergen, it signals the government’s intent to closely examine food...

Read More

New Restrictions on Sales and Delivery of E-Cigarettes and Vaping Products

The Preventing Online Sales of E-Cigarettes to Children Act substantially and materially alters how companies sell and ship e-cigarettes and tobacco and cannabis vaping products and components.  The act was signed into law on...

Read More

“Unfair Trade Practices” Exclusion Does Not Extend to Consumer Protection Claims

Two phrases combined in a single exclusion—“alleging, arising out of, based upon or attributable to any violation of any law…” and “as respects… unfair trade practices” could inspire carriers to make trouble for policyholders...

Read More