Industry News
Why RAW Changed Its Packaging: Inside the Rolling-Paper Trademark Wars
If you've noticed the wording on RAW rolling papers shift over the past couple of years, there's a reason. One of the biggest names in the rolling-paper aisle has been on the losing end of a long-running false-advertising fight — a case that reached a federal appeals court in 2025 and reshaped how the brand can market itself nationwide. It's a rare look at the legal battles playing out behind an everyday product.
The False-Advertising Case
The dispute pits Republic Brands, maker of OCB rolling papers, against HBI International, the company behind RAW and its founder, Josh Kesselman. Republic sued over a series of marketing claims, and a jury sided against HBI, finding that several statements about RAW were false or misleading.
According to court coverage, the disputed claims included:
- That RAW papers are made in Alcoy, Spain.
- That they use a "natural hemp gum" and "wind-powered" manufacturing.
- That a "RAW Foundation" charity operated as advertised.
- That RAW cones and organic papers were the "first" and "only" products of their kind.
The court found those claims either misleading or untrue and issued a permanent injunction barring HBI from making them, forcing changes to packaging and promotions. In June 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld that nationwide injunction, rejecting HBI's attempt to limit the ruling to Illinois. The practical result: the marketing restrictions apply across the country.
The court found those claims either misleading or untrue and issued a permanent injunction barring HBI from making them, forcing changes to packaging and promotions.
The Other Side of the Ledger
The two companies haven't only clashed over advertising. In a separate copyright and trade-dress case, a federal judge ordered Republic Brands to pay HBI $1.5 million after finding that OCB had copied elements of RAW's packaging design — the conclusion of a court battle that stretched on for roughly seven years. HBI has also reported winning judgments against other companies it accused of copying its designs.
In other words, each side has scored courtroom wins against the other: Republic prevailed on the false-advertising claims, while HBI prevailed on copyright. Both companies remain major players on U.S. shelves, and consumers can still find a wide variety of premium tobacco wraps and blunt leaves alongside traditional papers.
What It Means for Shoppers
For everyday buyers, the takeaways are less about legal nuance and more about knowing your product:
- Marketing claims can change: If older packaging language differs from what you see now, that's often the result of these rulings, not a different product.
- Design copying is real: Courts have repeatedly weighed in on look-alike packaging in this category, which is part of why brands guard their trade dress so aggressively.
- Buy from trusted sellers: Record Seizures: Why the Global Crackdown on Illicit Tobacco Matters to Shoppers highlights why purchasing from established retailers reduces the odds of getting a fake.
While the legal battle focuses on papers, many enthusiasts are also exploring alternatives like Zig Zag cigarette papers or natural options like Fronto Leaf Master Cream. Others are shifting toward Tobacco Hemp Wraps & Tobacco Blunt Wraps as Cones and Hemp Wraps Reshape the Rolling Aisle.
The Bottom Line
The rolling-paper aisle looks simple, but it sits on top of years of hard-fought litigation over advertising and design. The 2025 appeals-court decision cemented nationwide limits on how RAW can market itself, while a separate ruling went HBI's way on copyright. For shoppers, the lesson is straightforward: read the pack for what the product actually is, and buy from Tobacco Products & Smoking Accessories sources you trust. Even established brands like Dutch Masters Palma have seen changes, as Dutch Masters Undergoes First Major Brand Overhaul in a Century recently demonstrated.