Does anyone know the case allows cuban exiles to continue their brand name

[marvins]

Hi, guys, as recently I am writing a report which the topic is on Cuban cigar factory history, I cannot find the case that how Permanent Court of Arbitration allowed the Cuban exiles to continue to use their brand name which was held by Cuban government. Like the cuban and non-cuban Romeo y Juliet
Anyone knows please tell me, very thanks.

[PeeJay]

I understood that for RyJ at least the name was held by the owners when they fled

[sheppsea]

They can't use them anywhere outside America (as far as I know), or at least in only a few countries.

My understanding is that none of the previous owners held the name, the Cuban government nationalised the industry and therefore took over the ownership of the brands (including the names), whether that is fair is another question

I suppose they may be able to use them in the US as the cuban counterparts are illegal and possibly therefore HSA and previous equivalents can't hold a copyright (I am speculating though).

[ValeTudoGuy]

I think this is what your after:

"Grimes LLC Secures a Successful Trial Verdict for Cuban Cigar BrandsThe firm secured a trial verdict in favor of Cuban Cigar Brands, N.V., subsidiary of fine cigar maker Altadis U.S.A. Inc. and owner of the world famous "MONTECRISTO" trademark. In Cuban Cigar Brands, N.V. v. Inter America Cigar Co., Opposition No. 91169391 (TTAB 2008), the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board held there is a likelihood of confusion between Cuban Cigar Brands' "MONTECRISTO" mark for use in connection with cigars, and the Applicant's "PRIMO DEL CRISTO and Design" mark for use in connection with cigars."


This suggests that Altadis are the world trade mark owner for Montecristo in the American courts eyes.

[ValeTudoGuy]

I understood that for RyJ at least the name was held by the owners when they fled

RyJ is also owned by Altaldis who produce the NC cigars. Altaldis has heavy ties with Cuba Tobacco from the looks of it.

[sheppsea]

Altaldis has heavy ties with Cuba Tobacco from the looks of it.

They own 50% of HSA

[ValeTudoGuy]

They own 50% of HSA

So in a few cases it's a non issue. The same entity will be producing both NC and Cuban sides of the brand (presumably at different price points.)

[Captain Quintero]

They only exist in the US and only do so because the embargo means US courts will always rule against Cuban interests regardless of legal standing. Nationalisation is perfectly legal so the NC versions are illegal everywhere else in the world.

When the embargo ends and courts in the US have to play by the normal laws again they the NC versions will all vanish or have to be renamed just like NC La Gloria Cubana, everywhere outside of the US it is called El Credito.

[Simon-JG-hr]

Nationalisation is perfectly legal so the NC versions are illegal everywhere else in the world.

Without wishing to send things off track, nationalisation may indeed be perfectly legal, however, there is probably a very interesting debate to be had about the legitimacy of the Cuban government in 1960 so soon after they took power through armed revolution. (A debate for my previous life, I feel). That makes the key difference, to my mind, between legitimate nationalisation and illegitimate-state-sponsored expropriation.

[Captain Quintero]

It's murky I agree, I'd guess the lack of the NC versions outside of the US I think shows the way international courts view the situation. I could be wrong but I don't think there are any NC version available outside of the US.

The NC cohiba simply existing in the US shows the protection the embargo gives currently, they would get thrown out of a court in minutes.

I think every nation outside of the US officially recognises the current Cuban government, that probably automatically solves the legality of nationalisation debate for courts?

[PeeJay]

The NC cohiba simply existing in the US shows the protection the embargo gives currently, they would get thrown out of a court in minutes.

They should be thrown out, end of.

[smokey joe]

Without wishing to send things off track, nationalisation may indeed be perfectly legal, however, there is probably a very interesting debate to be had about the legitimacy of the Cuban government in 1960 so soon after they took power through armed revolution. (A debate for my previous life, I feel). That makes the key difference, to my mind, between legitimate nationalisation and illegitimate-state-sponsored expropriation.

I'm intrigued, what previous life is that Simon?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Simon-JG-hr]

Does anyone know the case allows cuban exiles to continue their brand name

After I left the Navy I read international relations at university and wrote a couple of journal articles on international security, then did a brief stint at our embassy in Turkey. Was very interesting, but spent far too much time writing for my liking.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk