El Presidente Posted October 29, 2020 Share Posted October 29, 2020 I came across the below box of Carl Upmann on a news feed this morning and dug a little deeper to clarify the relationship to H. Upmann. This would make a great movie Around 1935 in Cuba a large cigar factory of the famous brand Carl Upmann went bankrupt. A trader bought a huge stock of Upmann labels from the bankrupt estate. So it could happen that in the Netherlands false Upmann cigars were offered. This trademark infringement remained without consequences. Due to the war (lack of raw materials), the trade came to an end anyway So we have to right back to the beginning and 1839 when two brothers called Herman and and August Upmann came up with a plan to start a bank in Havana. Click the link below for a great abridged read on the history of Upmann. H. Upmann: The Banker, The Cigar and The Legend At this point you would think that the brand Carl Upmann is dead and buried. However the twists and turns continue. For our lawyer members and those with a cigar and a drink in hand, read through the court case review below. Cuban Cigar Brands NV v. Upmann Intern., Inc., 457 F. Supp. 1090 (S.D.N.Y. 1978) https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/457/1090/2347551/ 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rcarlson Posted October 30, 2020 Share Posted October 30, 2020 Okay, had to bite on the SDNY decision. It's straightforward from a legal perspective, but telling in its rhetoric. No doubt when you reach the holding (Sec. IV) the author, presumably Judge Weinfeld rather than a clerk, was a cigar smoker. Only a cigar smoker would gratuitously and enthusiastically throw into a trial court ruling that, "plaintiff's quality control is impressive as is its fifteen-year effort to develop a cigar worthy of bearing the H. Upmann name." That's too much appreciation to just be blind repetition of self-serving blather from the plaintiff's lawyer, particularly since it's unnecessary to the ruling IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Presidente Posted October 30, 2020 Author Share Posted October 30, 2020 3 minutes ago, rcarlson said: Okay, had to bite on the SDNY decision. It's straightforward from a legal perspective, but telling in its rhetoric. No doubt when you reach the holding (Sec. IV) the author, presumably Judge Weinfeld rather than a clerk, was a cigar smoker. Only a cigar smoker would gratuitously and enthusiastically throw into a trial court ruling that, "plaintiff's quality control is impressive as is its fifteen-year effort to develop a cigar worthy of bearing the H. Upmann name." That's too much appreciation to just be blind repetition of self-serving blather from the plaintiff's lawyer, particularly since it's unnecessary to the ruling IMO. ...you do know that I put in that link just for you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rcarlson Posted October 30, 2020 Share Posted October 30, 2020 1 minute ago, El Presidente said: ...you do know that I put in that link just for you Ken too, I'm sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now