Havana Club trademark dispute over: Winner? Cuba!

[Fuzz]

fuzz, no argument with that but the misinterpretation of the quote has become cemented into popular culture and people see it for what they assume it means. sadly, perception has overtaken the original intent. there are any number of similar instances - not just from shakespeare. "money is the root of all evil" is one that springs to mind. the full quote is "the love of money", a very different thing.

all i meant was that shakespeare was instrumental in stirring up distrust of lawyers, whether he meant it or not.

And here I thought the actions of all those money grubbing, pond-scum sucking, ambulance chasing, grandma's house stealing, devil-spawned leeches stirred up distrust of lawyers!

[Ken Gargett]

And here I thought the actions of all those money grubbing, pond-scum sucking, ambulance chasing, grandma's house stealing, devil-spawned leeches stirred up distrust of lawyers!

everyone hates lawyers till they need them!

[skalls]

everyone hates lawyers till they need them!

So very true.

[Fugu]

Bringing up this thread again, a link from the FOH-front page. Good read with some more background info.

http://qz.com/603330/cubas-rum-battle-is-a-reminder-that-the-embargo-is-still-quite-real/

[laficion]

Hi all,

I'm sorry for all of this but let's be honest..As much as I understand Barcardi,I can't say that their

Havana Club (Made In Puerto Rico),Is better then the Havana Club from Cuba.

The Havana Club from Cuba Is less Metallic and MUCH better even though I'm a Santiago de Cuba fan.

The land Is not political the same for cigars.Cuba can be Communist or anything else,The land will

always be Cuban. The same goes for their cigars.

Guy

.

[Ken Gargett]

the latest i have seen on this, with a few unsolicited comments at the finish.

BACARDI FIGHTS BACK AGAINST HAVANA CLUB RULING

1st February, 2016 by Lauren Eads

Bacardi has filed a Freedom of Information request to bring to light the rationale behind a decision to hand the Havana Club rum trademark to the Cuban government, giving Pernod Ricard the right to sell the brand in the US.

Bacardi has been selling its Puerto Rico-made Havana Club rum in the US since 1994, while the Cuban-made brand has been sold elsewhere by Pernod Ricard.

French drinks group Pernod Ricard has been unable to launch Cuba-made Havana Club in the US due to a trade embargo between US and Cuba, which has been in place since 1961 when the Cuban revolution led to communism.

Bacardi meanwhile has been selling its own brand of Havana Club rum, made in Puerto Rico, in the US since the mid-1990s. The group acquired the US rights from Havana Club’s founders, the Arechabala family, who had fled Cuba in the 1960s after the brand was seized by their country’s government. Bacardi won a US trademark dispute in 2012 allowing it to sell the brand originating from Cuba but produced in Puerto Rico in the US, overcoming the longstanding trade embargo. Pernod Ricard meanwhile continued to own the Havana Club trademark in the rest of the world as part of a joint venture with the Cuban government.

However following improved relations between the US and Cuba, last week the US Foreign Assets Control Office gave approval to renew the rights to sell the brand in the States to the Pernod/Cuban partnership, lifting a longstanding trade embargo without warning.

Describing itself as “shocked and very concerned” about the decision, Bacardi is now seeking all documents, communications and files that were created, used, or maintained by the US Patent & Trademark Office, Office of Foreign Assets Control, US Department of State, Executive Office of the President of the United States, the National Security Council, US Department of Treasury and/or any third parties to make the decision.

“We are filing this Freedom of Information Act request because the American people have the right to know the truth of how and why this unprecedented, sudden and silent action was taken by the United States government to reverse long-standing US. and international public policy and law that protects against the recognition or acceptance of confiscations of foreign governments,” said Eduardo Sánchez, senior vice president and general counsel at Bacardi.

“When the highest and most powerful government agencies are not transparent about critical changes in policy, the public has the right and the responsibility to use FOIA requests and other tools at their disposal to hold the government accountable for its actions.”

The ruling could cost Bacardi around 4,000,000 case sales per year and is likely to lead to add further fuel to an already long-running legal battle between Bacardi and Pernod Ricard.

3 Responses to “Bacardi fights back against Havana Club ruling”

1. Bob says:

   February 2, 2016 at 1:18 am

   Do the people of the United States also have the right to know how much of their tax dollars are used to subsidize Bacardi?

   Reply
2. Joe says:

   February 2, 2016 at 9:00 pm

   They do Bob and, if it’s true, a FIOA request could reveal it. Not sure why or even if Bacardi is subsidised by the US Govt!?

   Reply
3. Steve Neukomm says:

   February 4, 2016 at 7:24 pm

   Puerto Rico has an arrangement with the US on “local rum” with the Economic Development and Commerce with Secretary Jose Perez-Revera that under the Federal Rum Excise Tax Refunds program, the government of Puerto Rico receives a refund of $13.25 per gallon from the $13.50 excise that is imposed per gallon on spirits sold in the US. so if Bacardi sells 4,000,000 cases that would generate $126,140,000 for Puerto Rico and they have been known to incentivize the distilleries to stimulate Economic growth. However our government will not help our craft distillers as they have also done for craft beer or boutique wineries and reduce the federal excise tax rate to help out independent distiller. What’s a small distiller got to do around here to get a break.

[Fugu]

Thanks Ken,

but renewing the "rights to sell the brand in the US" is referring to the right to get the brand registered, not the right for immediately "selling" thus branded products in the US (as one might understand from the slightly condensed statement of the article).

Since the latter would mean a partial breakup of the embargo, which is - other than the article makes one believe - not the case afaik.

Anyway, would mean a heavy hit for Bacardi, if the case will stand all the legal fighting that will follow!

[Ryan]

I have a feeling, Ken, you'll disagree with this but there'll be a Cuban made Bacardi, called Bacardi, if not within 3 years, 5.

I know there were problems after the revolution but business is business.

Bacardi still advertises its Cuban origins on all their bottles.

[Ken Gargett]

I have a feeling, Ken, you'll disagree with this but there'll be a Cuban made Bacardi, called Bacardi, if not within 3 years, 5.

I know there were problems after the revolution but business is business.

Bacardi still advertises its Cuban origins on all their bottles.

i would be surprised. i know how much antagonism one gets if one mentions bacardi in havana. it is not loved. they have been implicated in assassination attempts on castro and been seen as the strongest enemies of cuba. hard to see the govt saying all is forgiven, so quickly.

also, i suspect you are attributing more of the commercial qualities found in the west than are present in cuba. they might catch up but it will take time. and remember that it will effectively be the govt, not independent business, behind it. how high a priority will that be for the govt?

if they did, it would open international legal actions. i doubt they have any desire for that. and who knows what conditions might be imposed in the removal of the embargo.

finally, it would greatly undermine their claims in the havana club battle, which i doubt they will be keen to do.

and, even more finally, where would they sell it? in cuba? everywhere else would be locked down.

i'd be more than surprised. i'd be amazed.

[Ryan]

Why would a Cuban-made Bacardi be locked down everywhere outside Cuba?

It would be in the US, if the embargo is still in place in 3-5 years, which I don't think is likely, but only the US.

[Ken Gargett]

Why would a Cuban-made Bacardi be locked down everywhere outside Cuba?

It would be in the US, if the embargo is still in place in 3-5 years, which I don't think is likely, but only the US.

you seriously think bacardi would allow it anywhere? the lawyers would go into overdrive. they would have every trademark and licence and whatever else they needed locked in place all around the world, and would have for years. absolutely no chance. on what basis could anyone, cuba or any other producer/govt/individual/corporate, start producing a rum called bacardi?

if another rum called bacardi appeared on shelves here, for example, how long would it last before bacardi had their lawyers in overdrive? would not mater if it came from cuba or wherever.

still, i've already been horribly wrong this week, but this i could not see.

[wabashcr]

I have to say I agree with Bacardi here. If, as stated in the article, they did legally acquire the Havana Club brand from the Arechabala family, who had it lifted from them by the Cuban government, it seems odd that the US government would rule this way. The US view of nationalizing private industry by foreign government has typically been that it constitutes theft. Just like the US views private citizens and corporations as the rightful owners of property and other assets appropriated by the Cuban government, it seems to me the Arechabala family was the rightful owner of the Havana Club brand. That they've chosen to sell it to Bacardi shouldn't have anything to do with that.

I don't have any doubt that Bacardi's Puerto Rican Havana Club is far inferior to the Cuban version, just like NC Montecristos and RyJs are garbage. And clearly Bacardi is benefiting from the reputation of the Cuban version. But that has nothing to do with their legal claim to the brand, in my opinion.

[wabashcr]

you seriously think bacardi would allow it anywhere? the lawyers would go into overdrive. they would have every trademark and licence and whatever else they needed locked in place all around the world, and would have for years. absolutely no chance. on what basis could anyone, cuba or any other producer/govt/individual/corporate, start producing a rum called bacardi?

if another rum called bacardi appeared on shelves here, for example, how long would it last before bacardi had their lawyers in overdrive? would not mater if it came from cuba or wherever.

still, i've already been horribly wrong this week, but this i could not see.

I think he meant Bacardi would start producing their own Cuban rum.

[Ken Gargett]

I think he meant Bacardi would start producing their own Cuban rum.

that is a different matter. i do know how much the name of bacardi is despised in cuba but anything is possible in time.

if punch joe is following this, love to have your opinion.

[Fugu]

I have to say I agree with Bacardi here. If, as stated in the article, they did legally acquire the Havana Club brand from the Arechabala family, who had it lifted from them by the Cuban government, it seems odd that the US government would rule this way. The US view of nationalizing private industry by foreign government has typically been that it constitutes theft.

A bit more complicated than that in this case: The Arechabalas were still in hold of the brand trademark after they fled the island, up until 1973 when the trademark protection were to expire. They then didn't apply for renewal. So the legal assessment will have to deal with the question - why didn't they renew, what was the cause?

If you don't own your company anymore (which had been sized without compensation) would one still invest in a trademark without any underlying business?! So, the question also is about whether the Arechabalas ware at all in a position to "sell" the brand, i.e. is Bacardi really holding that brand (legally so to say)? yes? no? and if 'yes' - why? if 'no' - why not? etc., etc. ...

[Ryan]

you seriously think bacardi would allow it anywhere? the lawyers would go into overdrive. they would have every trademark and licence and whatever else they needed locked in place all around the world, and would have for years. absolutely no chance. on what basis could anyone, cuba or any other producer/govt/individual/corporate, start producing a rum called bacardi?

if another rum called bacardi appeared on shelves here, for example, how long would it last before bacardi had their lawyers in overdrive? would not mater if it came from cuba or wherever.

still, i've already been horribly wrong this week, but this i could not see.

I think he meant Bacardi would start producing their own Cuban rum.

Yes sorry, that is exactly what I meant. That Bacardi will start producing their own Cuban rum.

[wabashcr]

A bit more complicated than that in this case: The Arechabalas were still in hold of the brand trademark after they fled the island, up until 1973 when the trademark protection were to expire. They then didn't apply for renewal. So the legal assessment will have to deal with the question - why didn't they renew, what was the cause?

If you don't own your company anymore (which had been sized without compensation) would one still invest in a trademark without any underlying business?! So, the question also is about whether the Arechabalas ware at all in a position to "sell" the brand, i.e. is Bacardi really holding that brand (legally so to say)? yes? no? and if 'yes' - why? if 'no' - why not? etc., etc. ...

Interesting. I didn't realize they had stopped making rum when they fled Cuba. Not only did they let the trademark expire, apparently the Cuban government then registered the trademark in the US. I understand your point about why the family might not continue to pay to protect their trademark, but it seems to me by failing to do so, they opened up the opportunity for someone else to take it. Knowing this, I'm a lot less sympathetic to Bacardi's argument.

[Fugu]

Interesting. I didn't realize they had stopped making rum when they fled Cuba. Not only did they let the trademark expire, apparently the Cuban government then registered the trademark in the US. I understand your point about why the family might not continue to pay to protect their trademark, but it seems to me by failing to do so, they opened up the opportunity for someone else to take it. Knowing this, I'm a lot less sympathetic to Bacardi's argument.

Certainly not an easy case. There are still other aspects to factor in, with regard to US and WTO jurisdiction. As Ken quite fittingly put it, there certainly is a lot of legal layers to get through.

[joejack11]

lolspeechless