BBK Tobacco v. Central Coast Agriculture — Weak RAW Trademark Case Brings $2.56 Million Fee Award

Background

BBK Tobacco, owner of RAW-branded smoking-product marks, accused cannabis company Central Coast Agriculture of infringing those marks through its Raw Garden brand. The litigation lasted more than seven years, included an appeal to the Ninth Circuit, and culminated in a two-week jury trial. The jury returned a complete defense verdict after about two hours and found no infringement or false designation of origin.

Central Coast then sought more than $5.5 million in attorneys’ fees and about $534,000 in nontaxable expenses under the Lanham Act, which allows fee awards in “exceptional” cases.

The Court’s Holding

The court held that the case was exceptional because BBK pursued exceptionally weak claims in an unreasonable manner. The marks shared the common word “raw,” but otherwise differed, and BBK produced no instance of actual consumer confusion. The court described the litigation as scorched-earth lawfare that forced a competitor to incur extraordinary costs despite the weakness of the theory.

Central Coast was the prevailing party even though BBK had won some separate issues involving trademark applications and counterclaims. The final jury judgment materially changed the parties’ legal relationship on the core infringement dispute. After reviewing billing records and reducing the request, the court awarded $2,559,745.61 in attorneys’ fees and the requested nontaxable costs.

Key Takeaways

• A Lanham Act case can become exceptional because of both an unusually weak infringement theory and aggressive litigation conduct.
• Sharing a short, descriptive word does not by itself establish likely confusion, especially when the overall marks and products differ.
• Partial success on collateral claims does not prevent the party that defeats the central infringement case from qualifying as the prevailing party.

Why It Matters

The award is a warning that trademark enforcement can create substantial fee exposure when the claimed similarity is thin and the litigation strategy is disproportionate. Brand owners should evaluate marks as consumers encounter them in full, test evidence of confusion early, and reassess after adverse rulings. Defendants facing overreaching claims may use the exceptional-case provision to recover a meaningful portion of defense costs.