Who owns "Cohiba"?

[Soulmanure]

Curious about any reactions to this: http://tikibaronline.blogspot.com/20...ral-cigar.html

In a nutshell, General Cigar won a case against Cubatobaco, thereby giving them rights to the Cohiba name in the U.S.

On the one hand, it is somewhat ironic that Cuba would like to claim property in the U.S., intellectual or otherwise. On the other hand, the real Cohibas, it seems to me, are to be found in Cuba (no doubt, under a glass lid). .

vs.

[captain duff]

Well this is an odd one really isn't it? I mean, with the other contested brands you can see why in most cases a contest arose - the cuban government nationalises the industry after the revolution (which was their domestic legal right) but still uses the old brand names (wasn't that down to Davidoff's influence?). So the old owners who have left the island argue that they should have legal ownership of the name of their former companies at least and if the cuban govt don't like it they should have started with new names.

You can see both sides of the argument regardless of where you stand on the politics. But this is different surely? Cohiba was a new brand that originated in cuba and was state owned from the very start - there were no former private owners. So any copying if the cohiba brand from outside is just that, copying and would, you assume, fall foul of whatever international body protects copyright and patent etc. And yet in this case the 'fake' product wins in court? Strikes me that this particular decision is a political one full stop, so I am definately !

[celsis]

I find it hard to believe that a US court would uphold ANY rights held by Cubatobacco! The US government would prefer it if Cuba didn't exist!

[Simon-JG-hr]

Quite. (To both of the above responses). We had a similar discussion quite a while back, though before the decision, obviously. It boiled down to much the same argument - the families which owned the original brand names moved when Communisim arrived, taking their products with them. Meanwhile, Cohiba (and Trinidad, for example) are Cuban government constructs, and the NC Cohiba can be seen as nothing other than an attempt to play off the name of a premium product.

[daverave999]

Absolutely Simon. I don't understand the implications of this ruling, but if the Cuban Cohiba has to change its name to something else (I can think of a few ) people will still buy them in preference to the NC. I don't see the point really. It won't make the respective products themselves any different.

[snooky]

Not sure of the politics, but Cohiba are made at the Partagas factory,
Cohiba the name given to the first cigar smoked by the indiginous people of Cuba and as i read the Behike was a high ranked indian who smoked the Cohiba during certain rituals.

[monkey66]

Interesting story.

Marketing and good smokes are two different things. Regardless of any ruling BOTL's will seek out the 'good stuff' regardless

[Soulmanure]

Interesting background. All the points made add up to the practical conclusion that the ruling can't change the cigar itself. I wonder if there is anyone who prefers the nc versions of classic cc's, pre- or post communism? Should the embargo be lifted, though, this could make for some tricky shopping.

[Simon-JG-hr]

The embargo lifiting will cause a few sticky issues, but not as many as it might first appear. Altadis owns a 50% share in Cubatabaco. British Imperial Tobacco (I think it's them) own Altadis, they also own a considerable number of the NC brands with the same name as Cuban brands. Therefore, deconfliction may be easier than it first appears.

PS. The principle is as above, I researched it a while back, but can't be arsed to check exactly which particular company is which (as I've just got back from a beer festival )...