Cohiba Trademark by General Cigar

 

A Federal Court ruled against General Cigar in a petition to reverse a Cohiba trademark registration that the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) canceled. The court decision is the latest development in an ongoing battle between Empresa Cubana Del Tabaco (d.b.a. Cubatabaco) and STG.

TTAB made the cancellation based on Articles 7 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention for Trade Mark and Commercial Protection. Both the United States and Cuba were a part of the agreement. General Cigar petitioned the courts to overrule the decision.

The decision made by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled: “Because the Court finds that Cubatabaco has established that the TAB’s cancellation of General Cigar’s registrations was proper under Article 8 of the Inter-American Convention (*IAC*) and that the Cuban Assets Control Regulations do not prohibit such cancellation, General Cigar’s requested relief will be denied and its Amended Complaint will be dismissed with prejudice.”

Following the decision Régis Broersma, Chief Commercial Officer of Scandinavian Tobacco Group, the owner of General Cigar Co. said: “We are of course disappointed by this decision, but we and our advisors will now study the ruling closely and of course consider the opportunity to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Our federal trademark registrations, which are the subject of the dispute, would remain valid and enforceable during a pending appeal. We expect the long dispute to continue before the courts.”

The battle for the ownership of the Cohiba brand trademark has been going on for over 25 years. Back in 1997, a lawsuit was filed by Cubatabaco over trademark ownership of the Cohiba brand in the United States. In February 2005, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York ruled unanimously in favor of General Cigar. That ruling stated that “General Cigar’s legal right to the Cohiba mark has been established against Cubatabaco. General Cigar has a right to use the mark in the United States because it owns the mark in the United States.”