Supreme Court rules for Cohiba (General Tob.)

C

Cigar Hound

Reading More Posting Less
I just saw this and thought I'd pass it along for what it's worth.


June 19, 2006


We are pleased to announce that the Supreme Court has denied Cubatabaco’s
petition for review in the dispute over ownership of the COHIBA® trademark in
the United States.


The Supreme Court’s ruling affirms what we believed all along: That Cubatabaco
has no standing in challenging our ownership of the COHIBA® mark in the
United States.


Now that the Supreme Court has confirmed that we are the only legitimate
owner of the COHIBA® brand in the United States, we will enhance our
ongoing nationwide initiatives against manufacturers, distributors and retailers
of counterfeit COHIBA® cigars.


To this end, we are currently working on an update to our website. It is one that
will allow consumers to provide us with information about alleged counterfeiters.
Please look for this new feature on your next visit to cigarworld.com.


We would like to take this opportunity to thank those who have been loyal to
the COHIBA® brand during this process. We appreciate your support and look
forward to bringing you exciting new offerings from COHIBA® in the near future.


Sincerely,




Daniel Núñez
President and Chief Operating Officer
General Cigar Co., Inc.
 
Complete and utter crap. The courts really screwed the pooch on this one (though I'm not surprised that SCOTUS refused to hear the case).
 
Ivory Tower said:
I didn't know anyone was loyal to nonCuban Cohibas or the General Cigar brand of Cohibas. :fu
Click to expand...
Agreed - Still this could be interesting if the embargo ever lifts...
Bests

Jon
 
Why would a Cuban entity have any standing in a US Court? Right or wrong, everything Cubatabaco reps is illegal within our borders. They can't advertise, they can't market and there's no reason that they should be able to sue. No surprise the Court wouldn't grant cert on this.
 
In my opinion General ripped of Cuba so I see no claims against Cuba or others wanting to market under the Cohiba name. Its all just legal :BS . General was the first to aquire rights to the name in the US. Even so they still ripped of Cuba for the name sake. General has spent thousands if not millions of dollars fighting this with Cuba, the "Yellow Band" folks and now also recently fighting "Cohiba / Caribbean's Finest." Non educated smokers are mostly the ones buying any cigar by the name Cohiba even the Red Dots because they associate the name with the Cuban brand. At the end of the day General has a high priced cigar that is not worty of the price. RJT
 
Teninx said:
Why would a Cuban entity have any standing in a US Court? Right or wrong, everything Cubatabaco reps is illegal within our borders. They can't advertise, they can't market and there's no reason that they should be able to sue. No surprise the Court wouldn't grant cert on this.
Click to expand...
That's not the issue. They are allowed to sue and register trademarks (just as US companies are allowed to in Cuba). The transfer of the interest (the trademark) is what was disallowed by the Second Circuit. It is not an issue of standing.
 
A magnificent legal victory for Consolidated Dog Rockets USA.

Of course this ruling has no bearing on the rest of the world, where General Cigar Co's products are unsurprisingly very difficult to find.
 
I'm very impartial to this ruling. So general ripped off Cohiba. Big deal, the nationalized cuban tobacco industry ripped off family brands. They fled, government kept the names going. Montecristo, Partagas, RyJ, etc were all family started and family owned names.

It's nice they getting a dose of their own medicine imho.
 
VirtualSmitty said:
I'm very impartial to this ruling. So general ripped off Cohiba. Big deal, the nationalized cuban tobacco industry ripped off family brands. They fled, government kept the names going. Montecristo, Partagas, RyJ, etc were all family started and family owned names.

It's nice they getting a dose of their own medicine imho.
Click to expand...
I was not trying to imply I did not have sympathy for the Cuban people. I think they deserve all they can get for what Castro did to them. RJT
 
Does that mean those Siglo VI’s I bought are counterfeit? Isn’t there some kind trademarking on an International level?

Cuba should just start stealing US trademarks and selling them…
 
VirtualSmitty said:
I'm very impartial to this ruling. So general ripped off Cohiba. Big deal, the nationalized cuban tobacco industry ripped off family brands. They fled, government kept the names going. Montecristo, Partagas, RyJ, etc were all family started and family owned names.

It's nice they getting a dose of their own medicine imho.
Click to expand...
Couldn't have said it better myself.:tpd:
 
croatan said:
That's not the issue. They are allowed to sue and register trademarks (just as US companies are allowed to in Cuba). The transfer of the interest (the trademark) is what was disallowed by the Second Circuit. It is not an issue of standing.
Click to expand...

Your response above prompted me to do a little research regarding the trademark issue and showed me a situation about which I was unaware...so thanks for your response. I still don't give a shit about the infringement of Cuban trademarks, however. Now if Cuba starts manufacturing cars with the General Motors badge and starts selling Chevys on the world market, I'll eat my words.
 
As VS brought up, Cuba ripped off all the names that they are now trying to register? I think they are the ones that should not have the names sakes. All the families fled to the DR or other spots and started their buisnesses up again. If the Supreme Court ruled in any other way all those families would then be subject to the same ruling and they would then be in jeapordy of loosing their names sake becuase Cube kicked them out. I think this is the correct ruling IMHO. Cuba doesnt own the names for any reason other then they took them from the families that started them.

LT :gn
 
LT Rich said:
As VS brought up, Cuba ripped off all the names that they are now trying to register? I think they are the ones that should not have the names sakes. All the families fled to the DR or other spots and started their buisnesses up again. If the Supreme Court ruled in any other way all those families would then be subject to the same ruling and they would then be in jeapordy of loosing their names sake becuase Cube kicked them out. I think this is the correct ruling IMHO. Cuba doesnt own the names for any reason other then they took them from the families that started them.

LT :gn
Click to expand...

No, the Cohiba brand did not exist before the revolution, neither did Trinidad, Cuaba, or Diplomaticos.

I think there are arguments on both sides concerning the ownership of the pre-revolutionary brands, but in this case I don't think General has a leg to stand on. I anticipate that this is not the last time I will find myself in disagreement with a Supreme Court decision.
 
Last edited:
Corona Gigante said:
No, the Cohiba brand did not exist before the revolution, neither did Trinidad, Cuaba, or Diplomaticos.
Click to expand...

That's exactly why I like the decision. They are getting a taste of their own medicine so to speak.

And how is there an argument about the old brands? Communist Cuba ripped them off. Families invested their time and money into making successful brands and Castro's government just took that. I'm sorry that they don't like it being done back to them, but maybe they shouldn't have done it in the first place. I think the Supreme Court was dead on.
 
IMO this sort of stuff is always going to happen whilst the embargo still exists and relations between the US and Cuba are so frosty. which is all to the detriment of US B/SOTLs.
 
VirtualSmitty said:
They are getting a taste of their own medicine so to speak.
Click to expand...

Well, that may be true, but I don't think it's a reliable legal basis on which to come to a decision.

I try to live my life by a certain standard. Like my dad always used to say, "Two wrongs don't make a right, but three rights make a left."
 
j6ppc said:
Agreed - Still this could be interesting if the embargo ever lifts...
Bests

Jon
Click to expand...

Agreed.


On another note, the Cuban government may be a bad form of government, but I don't think that invalidates their action in relation to the families that owned the original Cuban cigar brands. It's really too bad for those families, but in a legal sense, they were never operating under the U.S. government or laws. Therefore, it doesn't seem like the Cuban government decision to nationalize the brands is necessarily illegal, although no one really agrees with its morality or ethics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top