Cuban Cigar Company Sues Michigan Cigar Shop

[MarkinAZ]

I love the idiotic comment "and the potential for confusion seems real." I don't see any confusion what so ever between the names myself. So I'm wondering where the piss ant country of Cuba gets off by filing a frivolous lawsuit?

More important, I would think that some State and/or Federal statute would have tolled by now, since Mr. Houmani has been using an independant name for his businesses during the past 10 years.

It will be interesting to see what steps Mr. Houmani's commercial insurance carrier will take in this matter...

[Neens]

Originally Posted by MarkinCA

I love the idiotic comment "and the potential for confusion seems real." I don't see any confusion what so ever between the names myself. So I'm wondering where the piss ant country of Cuba gets off by filing a frivolous lawsuit?

More important, I would think that some State and/or Federal statute would have tolled by now, since Mr. Houmani has been using an independant name for his businesses during the past 10 years.

It will be interesting to see what steps Mr. Houmani's commercial insurance carrier will take in this matter...

I'm with you on the confusion part. The cuban owned shops can't open on US soil so there can't be any confusion. But it doesn't matter how long Mr. Houmani has been in business, all the matters is who the trademark was granted to first. You could be running a business for 30 years and I opened last week with the same name, if I get a federal trademark and you haven't filed for one I can start up a law suit which would make you close or change your name.

[TheRiddick]

Originally Posted by Neens

I'm with you on the confusion part. The cuban owned shops can't open on US soil so there can't be any confusion. But it doesn't matter how long Mr. Houmani has been in business, all the matters is who the trademark was granted to first. You could be running a business for 30 years and I opened last week with the same name, if I get a federal trademark and you haven't filed for one I can start up a law suit which would make you close or change your name.

Not sure about that, at least not based on last 10 years' worth of court cases. In theory that may be true, but only in theory. Operating under a name establishes your "trademark" whether you filed for one or not. It doesn't make much effort to prove to courts that you have been operating under Name X for 30 years and no matter if someone else just opened and trade marked the name, the name is still yours and your customers know you under that name. Whether you filed for a trademark or not, you used it first. It will cost you to fight it, but you'll win (and may counter sue to recoup your legal costs as well).

Take a look at internet domain names property rights, the courts have settled that issue some time ago. Only because I registered domain name under apple.com (or any other well known name) does not make it mine.

[MarkinAZ]

Originally Posted by TheRiddick

Operating under a name establishes your "trademark" whether you filed for one or not. It doesn't make much effort to prove to courts that you have been operating under Name X for 30 years and no matter if someone else just opened and trade marked the name, the name is still yours and your customers know you under that name. Whether you filed for a trademark or not, you used it first. It will cost you to fight it, but you'll win (and may counter sue to recoup your legal costs as well)....

That is exactly the direction I was thinking of, in that Mr. Houmani has been using the name "La Casa De La Habana" for the last 10 years, and has established precedent and/or ownership and use of the business name.

I'm sure if we have some BOTL's/SOTL's who's JD and expertise is in this area, some case law would be interesting for them to provide here on this thread...

La Casa De La Habana translates to "The House of Havana" and La Casa del Habano tranlates to "The House of the Havana Cigar."

[akumushi]

Originally Posted by MarkinCA

That is exactly the direction I was thinking of, in that Mr. Houmani has been using the name "La Casa De La Habana" for the last 10 years, and has established precedent and/or ownership and use of the business name.

I'm sure if we have some BOTL's/SOTL's who's JD and expertise is in this area, some case law would be interesting for them to provide here on this thread...

La Casa De La Habana translates to "The House of Havana" and La Casa del Habano tranlates to "The House of the Havana Cigar."

La Casa Del Habano first opened in 1990, so, assuming Cubatobacco filed for a U.S. trademark then, they would still have precident, I don't think Altadis would have filed suit if they didn't have that trademark already registered, but time will tell as the case unfolds. I'm sure none of us are experts on the details of this case. Remember that this probably isn't going to be a suit filed by the Cuban Government directly, but most likely by Altadis/Habanos S.A., a company with legitimate business interests in the United States.
For me, the interesting part of this is not "oh how dare Cuba," but what is an obvious increase in activity by Altadis/Habanos S. A. in exercising their claim on U.S. trademarks. They clearly anticipate a lifting of the embargo, or they would not be putting out millions to lay out the economic and legal groundwork for the introduction of their product into the U.S. market, because that is what this case is really about. First, it was the Montecristo (Altadis) Vs. Tatuaje case, which they seemed to win a easy victory. This was a no brainer for them to start with because Altadis has been selling Dominican Montecristos in the U.S. for years and had a valid U.S. trademark before it bought Habanos. But now, they are going out on a limb by starting what will really be a make it or break it case for them. This case is a probe, testing to see if U.S. courts will uphold their interests in brands started by the Cuban government. If they lose this case, it is going to be very hard for them to hold onto a lot of their branding and trademarks when the embargo lifts. If they win this case, then expect many more lawsuits from this company.
It's interesting that they are pushing so hard in this direction, ramping up for introduction to the U.S. market, you've got to wonder whether it's wishful thinking on their part, or whether they know something the rest of us don't.

[MarkinAZ]

Originally Posted by akumushi

It's interesting that they are pushing so hard in this direction, ramping up for introduction to the U.S. market, you've got to wonder whether it's wishful thinking on their part, or whether they know something the rest of us don't.

...Do you think they (Altadis/Habanos SA) have an "insider" with the US Gov't on some future event regarding trade and the lifting of the embargo?

[akumushi]

Originally Posted by MarkinCA

...Do you think they (Altadis/Habanos SA) have an "insider" with the US Gov't on some future event regarding trade and the lifting of the embargo?

No, but they certainly have enough money to hire a competent lobbyist or two. With Castro very likely to die within the next decade, and with U.S. antagonism in foreign policy shifting away from Marxist states to Islamic theocracies, the climate is certainly right for an end to the embargo. In fact, as long as they don't go all Kim Jong Il on us and start pursuing nuclear weapons, a lifting of the embargo is likely, if not assured in the long run, say 10-20 years. I don't know exactly what kind of game of dice Altadis was playing when they bought into Habanos, but you can bet that one of their long term goals is to break the embargo and have sole distribution rights of Cuban tobacco in the U.S, and they will throw a lot of money at the problem until they solve it, because there is so much potential for profit there that they would be idiots not to do so.