RAW Papers Lied About Alcoy, Spain and a Foundation That Never Existed | Complete Lawsuit Update

RAW Rolling Papers built its brand on a story: handcrafted papers made in Alcoy, Spain, by artisanal craftsmen, backed by an organic mission and a charitable foundation called the RAW Foundation. Courts have now found that large parts of that story were false. A federal jury in Illinois found that HBI International, the company behind RAW, engaged in unfair competition and violated consumer protection law. A permanent injunction followed in January 2023 that forced the brand to strip core claims from its packaging and marketing.

That case, Republic Brands v. HBI International, was decided in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. It is one of three major legal battles surrounding RAW’s brand. A separate trademark fight over the “RAW GARDEN” name went through the Ninth Circuit and ultimately ended in a unanimous jury verdict against BBK, RAW’s parent company. A third action, a counterfeiting case against the Brocone brand, ended in an $8.7 million award for BBK in December 2024.

RAW Rolling Papers Lawsuit Timeline and Updates

2016 — Republic Brands Files Federal Lawsuit in Illinois

Republic Brands, a Glenview, Illinois-based distributor behind OCB, JOB, and other rolling paper brands, filed a federal lawsuit against HBI International in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Republic Brands alleged that HBI “deceptively and unfairly marketed” its RAW Organic Hemp rolling papers across nine categories of claims.

The case was a direct competitive dispute. RAW had publicly called OCB papers “RAWnabees” and knockoffs of its own organic hemp papers. Republic Brands pushed back in court, arguing that RAW’s marketing was built on false foundations.

2019 — BBK Files Trademark Suit Against Raw Garden

BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP, the entity that operates RAW’s parent company HBI International, filed a separate federal lawsuit against Central Coast Agriculture, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. Case No. 2:19-cv-05216-MTL. BBK alleged that CCA’s use of the “RAW GARDEN” brand name for its California cannabis products infringed BBK’s registered RAW trademark.

CCA, a Delaware-incorporated company operating in California, sold cannabis products including concentrates and vapes under the Raw Garden label exclusively through licensed California dispensaries and delivery services. CCA’s sales were legal under California law but illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act, a tension that would shape key legal arguments in the case.

December 2022 — Illinois Court Finds RAW Foundation Does Not Exist

U.S. District Judge Thomas Durkin issued a ruling on December 6, 2022, that the RAW Foundation was a “non-existent foundation.” For years, HBI had referenced a charitable entity called the RAW Foundation in its promotional materials, implying that a portion of proceeds or funds supported this organization. The court found no such foundation existed.

This was a foundational blow to RAW’s brand story. The RAW Foundation had been part of the company’s identity and a reason many consumers chose RAW over competitors who they believed lacked that charitable dimension.

January 2023 — Jury Verdict: HBI Engaged in Unfair Competition

An Illinois jury returned a verdict finding that HBI International engaged in unfair competition and violated the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The verdict covered packaging and promotional activities across multiple RAW brand claims.

On January 19, 2023, Judge Durkin issued an opinion and order stating that HBI “makes no rolling paper in Alcoy, Spain whatsoever.” For over a decade, HBI had stamped its products with an Alcoy identifier and marketed the papers as handmade by artisanal craftsmen in the Spanish town widely known as the birthplace of rolling paper. The papers were not made there.

January 31, 2023 — Permanent Injunction Issued

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entered a permanent injunction against HBI on January 31, 2023. The order prohibited HBI from making the following claims in any form, on packaging, in advertising, or in promotional material:

HBI was required to pull all RAW Organic Hemp products in non-compliant packaging from distribution by March 2, 2023. By May 31, 2023, the injunction extended to packaging for all other HBI brands, including Elements, Juicy Jays, DLX, Skunk, and Pay-Pay, that carried an Alcoy stamp.

February 2023 — RAW Responds and Rebrands Charitable Giving

RAW issued a public statement describing “hurtful and inaccurate rumors” and clarified the facts. The company stated that its papers are made in Benimarfull, a village in Spain’s Alicante Province, and that the paper is milled in France before finishing in Benimarfull. RAW said its Organic Hemp papers use certified organic hemp from southern France.

On charitable giving, RAW acknowledged that the RAW Foundation name may have implied it was an independent charity. It was not. The company stated it had donated more than $2.5 million in direct cash and in-kind contributions to 17 charities and renamed its charitable arm “RAW Giving.”

September 2023 — Counterfeiting Case: Settlement with NEPA Wholesale

In a separate action, BBK had sued entities involved in manufacturing and distributing counterfeit RAW products under the “Brocone” brand. In September 2023, BBK reached a stipulated injunction and confidential settlement with NEPA Wholesale Inc., identified as the primary U.S. distributor of Brocone products. Litigation continued against the Indian manufacturer and other distributors.

April 2024 — Ninth Circuit Rules for BBK in RAW Garden Appeal

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued two decisions on April 1, 2024 in the RAW Garden trademark case. The appeals court sent BBK’s trademark infringement claim back to the district court for a full jury trial. It also upheld two prior rulings: that RAW rolling papers do not constitute “drug paraphernalia” under the Controlled Substances Act, and that CCA’s trademark applications to register “RAW GARDEN” with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office were invalid due to lack of bona fide intent to use.

CCA had argued that BBK’s rolling papers were drug paraphernalia and therefore that BBK could not hold valid trademarks. The Ninth Circuit rejected that argument, a significant win for BBK.

August 2024 — Ninth Circuit Denies RAW Garden Rehearing

Central Coast Agriculture petitioned for a rehearing before the full 11-judge Ninth Circuit panel. The petition was denied on July 26, 2024. The three-judge panel’s April ruling stood, confirming that the trademark infringement claim would proceed to trial and that RAW papers are not drug paraphernalia.

December 2024 — RAW Wins $8.7 Million in Counterfeiting Case

U.S. Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler of the District of Nevada issued a judgment on December 17, 2024, awarding BBK more than $8.7 million against the remaining defendants in the Brocone counterfeiting case. The judgment included more than $3 million in disgorged profits and more than $5.6 million in statutory damages for copyright violations related to BBK’s packaging designs.

The Brocone products were manufactured in India by Brocone Organic Private Limited and imported by AIMS Group USA Corporation. The products did not merely compete with RAW. They copied RAW’s packaging design and replicated the exact language from BBK’s packaging, a deliberate attempt to pass counterfeit goods off as genuine RAW products.

The win concluded a two-year enforcement effort by BBK. RAW founder Josh Kesselman described the counterfeit products as a betrayal of customers who trusted the brand.

February 2025 — Arizona Court Rules on Cannabis Profit Disgorgement

In the RAW Garden case still pending in Arizona, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona addressed a novel legal question in February 2025. BBK had sought to disgorgement of CCA’s profits from RAW Garden sales. CCA argued its cannabis sales were federally illegal and therefore could not be subject to profit disgorgement in a trademark case.

The court rejected that argument, holding that profit disgorgement remained available even where the infringer’s profits came from federally illegal cannabis sales. Legal analysts flagged the ruling as potentially the first of its kind in cannabis trademark law, with broad implications for trademark enforcement across the industry.

November 2025 — Jury Rules for CCA in RAW Garden Trial

After a two-week jury trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona before Judge Michael T. Liburdi, a nine-person jury returned a unanimous verdict for Central Coast Agriculture in less than 90 minutes. The verdict rejected every allegation BBK brought: trademark infringement, unfair competition, and all related claims.

The jury found that CCA’s Raw Garden brand was independently developed and lawfully used and did not infringe BBK’s RAW trademark. The verdict concluded over six years of litigation. BBK had sought damages, disgorgement, and a permanent injunction that would have required CCA to rebrand its entire cannabis product line.

What RAW Falsely Claimed and Why It Mattered

The Illinois case exposed a gap between RAW’s brand narrative and its actual business practices. The Alcoy story was central to RAW’s premium positioning. Alcoy, a city in Spain’s Valencia region, is genuinely considered the birthplace of commercial rolling paper production. Associating RAW with Alcoy implied a heritage, a craftsmanship, and a geographic authenticity that courts found to be false.

The RAW Foundation claim ran deeper for many consumers. Rolling paper buyers who chose RAW partly because they believed it supported charitable causes had been misled. There was no foundation. The company made donations, but not through any charitable entity called the RAW Foundation, and the court found no such entity existed.

Claims about wind power, hemp gum adhesive, and the “unrefined” nature of the papers added to a picture of a product that was being marketed as something it was not. Each claim individually may seem minor. Together, they formed a brand identity built substantially on false statements.

The RAW Garden Trademark Battle

The conflict between BBK and Central Coast Agriculture raised questions central to cannabis trademark law. Federal trademark protection under the Lanham Act is generally not available for products that are illegal under federal law. Cannabis falls into that category. CCA argued this meant BBK’s trademark enforcement should fail.

Courts rejected that logic. RAW rolling papers themselves are legal products. They are used with both cannabis and tobacco. The Ninth Circuit confirmed they are not drug paraphernalia. BBK’s RAW trademark was validly registered. That trademark could be enforced against a competing mark, RAW GARDEN, that the jury ultimately found not to infringe it.

The February 2025 profit disgorgement ruling added a new dimension. It confirmed that a trademark holder can seek to recover profits from an infringer even if those profits came from federally illegal cannabis sales. That holding opens enforcement pathways for any brand operating adjacent to cannabis whose trademark is misappropriated by cannabis companies.

The Brocone Counterfeiting Case

While the Illinois and Arizona cases involved disputes between legitimate industry competitors, the Brocone counterfeiting case was straightforward: Indian manufacturer Brocone Organic Private Limited produced products designed to deceive consumers into thinking they were buying genuine RAW papers.

The products copied packaging design. They copied label language. The U.S. importer, AIMS Group USA, and distributor Florida One Wholesale Inc. moved those products through American supply chains. NEPA Wholesale, the primary U.S. distributor, settled in September 2023. The remaining defendants faced a December 2024 judgment of $8.7 million.

What Consumers Should Know

RAW’s compliance with the 2023 injunction means that current packaging no longer makes the enjoined claims. Products sold after May 2023 should not carry the Alcoy stamp or reference the RAW Foundation. The charitable program has been renamed RAW Giving. The company clarified that papers are made in Benimarfull, Spain, not Alcoy.

But consumers who made purchase decisions based on the now-enjoined claims did so under false pretenses. If the Alcoy origin story, the charitable foundation, or the environmental claims influenced why you chose RAW over competitors for a decade, those representations have been found false by a federal court.

What This Lawsuit Teaches Consumers

The RAW case illustrates how brand mythology and product reality can drift apart when no one is checking. RAW built a premium identity over years using claims that courts found to be unsupported. The Alcoy narrative was compelling. The charitable mission was compelling. Neither was what the marketing implied.

The company that brought the case was not a regulator. It was a direct competitor, Republic Brands. That pattern repeats throughout consumer product litigation: the most effective watchdog is often another company with a financial stake in the truth. Regulators rarely have the resources or incentive to dissect rolling paper packaging claims. A competitor who loses market share to false claims does.

The RAW Garden verdict, meanwhile, shows that even aggressive, well-funded trademark litigation can fail. BBK spent six years and substantial legal resources pursuing CCA. A jury decided in under 90 minutes that Raw Garden did not infringe RAW’s trademark. Trademark cases are not won at the appellate level. They are won or lost in front of juries who apply common sense to whether consumers would actually confuse a cannabis concentrate brand with a rolling paper brand.

For consumers buying branded products, the takeaway is simple. Brand stories are marketing. Origin claims, environmental claims, and charitable claims on packaging are not automatically true. A federal court had to force RAW to remove claims from its packaging that it had been making for over a decade. Until a competitor, a regulator, or a court intervenes, the false claims continue.

The same pattern of brand claim litigation appears in the Poppi Soda lawsuit, where health claims on product packaging led to an $8.9 million false advertising settlement. The MaryRuth Organics lawsuit raises comparable questions about product label accuracy in the supplement space. For trademark enforcement more broadly, the Lululemon v. Costco lawsuit demonstrates how aggressively brands pursue lookalike products. And the deceptive marketing dynamics here echo what played out in the Market America lawsuit, where product claims formed the basis of a federal RICO action.