Cuba prevails in cigar trademark Cohiba battle

[El Presidente]

Cuba prevails in cigar trademark battle

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — The Cuban state-owned cigar company Cubatabaco prevailed in its three-decade-long trademark battle with Delaware’s General Cigar Company over the name Cohiba. The trademark board correctly canceled General Cigar’s trademarks because Cubatabaco met its burden to show that it enjoyed legal protection of its mark in Cuba prior to General Cigar’s registration applications in the U.S., and that the U.S. firm knew about Cubatabaco’s use of its mark in Cuba before it applied to register the mark.

RULING

[BrightonCorgi]

Good for Cubatabaco. It wasn't right, General Cigar using that name.

[LordAnubis]

At this point, the Cuban Cohiba is doing more harm to the red dot than it is doing good! 😂

[JohnS]

General Cigar Co. Response to Recent US Court Ruling on COHIBA Trademark

 May 16, 2025 - Press Release

On May 7, 2025, the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled in favor of Cubatabaco in the litigation General Cigar Co., Inc. filed challenging the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s cancellation of its US trademark registrations for the COHIBA mark for cigars. This is the most recent development in the dispute between Cubatabaco and General Cigar Co. which started in the mid-1990s.

Régis Broersma, Chief Commercial Officer of Scandinavian Tobacco Group, the owner of General Cigar Co. says: “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 US 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 district court ruling deals with the federal trademark registrations and does not impact General Cigar Co.’s common law trademark rights based on its long use of the COHIBA mark on its cigars marketed and sold in the US. These trademark rights remain valid and enforceable irrespective of the current dispute. And importantly, General Cigar’s COHIBA cigars are available to US consumers as they have been for nearly 50 years.

Source: https://www.cigarjournal.com/gcc-response-to-recent-us-court-ruling-on-cohiba-trademark/

[ha_banos]

I don't understand. GC can still use Cohiba and even if their appeals fail, they still can do so under common law?

They just can't register it as a trademark? 

Legal is always so confusing and not clear to me. 

 

 

[El Presidente]

13 hours ago, ha_banos said:

I don't understand. GC can still use Cohiba and even if their appeals fail, they still can do so under common law?

They just can't register it as a trademark? 

Legal is always so confusing and not clear to me.

It is bullshit indeed. 

[Ciscojohansson]

I may not agree with all said but this was a interesting chat about Cuban cigars and the concept of luxury. 

[JohnS]

General Appeals Ruling in Cohiba Lawsuit

June 9, 2025 - Charlie Minato

Last week, General Cigar Co. filed a notice of appeal in General Cigar Company, Inc. v. Empresa Cubana del Tabaco, D.B.A. Cubatabaco, a lawsuit over the trademark of the Cohiba name in the U.S.

General, which sells the non-Cuban Cohiba in the U.S., and Cubatabaco, the state-run Cuban tobacco company that produces the Cohiba sold in all other markets, have been in a legal battle over the trademark(s) since 1997. Last month, Judge Leonie Brinkema of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled in favor of the Cuban company, a decision that would allow the United States Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) to move forward with a 2022 decision to cancel two Cohiba trademarks owned by General. In response to the 2022 decision, General filed this lawsuit, which it lost and is now appealing.

Brinkema found that General not only knew about the Cohiba brand prior to registering a trademark for the name in 1978 but also that Cubatabaco had trademark protection for the name thanks in part to an international treaty.

“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 US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit,” said Régis Broersma, chief commercial officer of STG, owner of General Cigar Co., in a press release following last month’s ruling. “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.”

As of now, the appeal is listed as a restricted entry in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit’s electronic filing system.

While the two companies both use the Cohiba name, General developed a unique look for its Cohiba brand, which includes a red circle inside the o of Cohiba, called the “red dot.” In contrast, the Cuban Cohiba relies on a combination of gold, navy and white and uses a silhouette of a Taíno Indian for its logo.

Source: https://halfwheel.com/general-appeals-ruling-in-cohiba-lawsuit/452252/

[CigarCulture09]

Glad Cubatabaco won. 

[JohnS]

General Asks Appeals Court to Overturn Its “Cohiba” Trademark Loss to Cuba

October 8, 2025 - Charlie Minato

Last week, attorneys representing General Cigar Co. filed arguments in the company’s nearly three-decades-long fight with Cuba over who owns the trademark for “COHIBA” in the U.S.

This brief comes as a result of a May 2025 decision by Judge Leonie Brinkema of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia as part of General Cigar Company, Inc. v. Empresa Cubana del Tabaco, D.B.A. Cubatabaco. In it, she found that General Cigar Co.’s previous owners knew about the Cohiba brand in 1978, likely as a result of a November 1977 article in Forbes; General filed for the Cohiba trademark in March 1978. She then turned to the question of whether Cubatabaco, the state-owned tobacco company that is responsible for the production of Cuban cigars, enjoyed trademark protection in Cuba. She found it did, which meant that the Inter-American Convention (IAC), a treaty, gave the company some protections in the U.S. As such, Brinkema allowed the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to move forward with canceling General’s two Cohiba trademarks.

General, as its attorneys explicitly state in their brief, is not challenging any of that. Instead, it has asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to throw out the decision because of a complicated web of procedural moves that involve multiple other judicial bodies.

In short, General’s argument starts with accusations that Cubatabaco forum shopped this decision, dating back to 1997, when the legal proceedings first began. General says that Cubatabaco engaged in two different legal strategies: first, asking the USPTO to cancel General’s two existing Cohiba trademarks, and second, to apply for its own mark for Cohiba. Cubatabaco then asked for an injunction from a federal court in New York, while also asking the USPTO to suspend the cancellation proceedings. General’s attorneys quote Cubatabaco, which told the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York that litigation “will be dispositive of all of the issues raised in the instant Cancellation Proceeding, including the issue of entitlement to registration.”

These issues worked their way through the courts and resulted in wins for General from both the lower court and, in 2005, from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In 2011, Cubatabaco went back to the USPTO and asked the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) to cancel General’s mark, which was rejected because the TTAB said that the Second Circuit decision meant that Cubatabaco had no standing. General’s attorneys say that this 2011 filing is the start of when things went off the rails, in part because Cubatabaco had previously stated that litigation would solve these issues outside of the TTAB. It’s also the start of when General started losing the legal fight.

Cubatabaco appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which ruled in favor of the Cubans and sent the case back to the TTAB. General appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, which declined to hear the matter.

In December 2022, the TTAB ruled in favor of Cubatabaco and said that it would cancel General’s Cohiba trademarks. A few months later, General sued over that TTAB decision, filing a lawsuit in federal court in Virginia, where the company is based. That case resulted in the May 2025 decision.

All of these different decisions are the crux of the appeal. General is arguing that much of the 2014 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should not have been made because many of these claims were already decided by the Second Circuit. Given that General’s attorneys describe the Second Circuit ruling as a “complete win for General Cigar,” it is not surprising that they believe that the decision is the one that should stand. Those questions, some of which were decided differently by the Federal Circuit—which General is now asking a different court to revisit—include topics such as whether the USPTO could legally transfer the Cohiba trademark to Cubatabaco under the embargo, but it also raises other questions, such as whether the district court’s decision is a cancellation of General’s trademark, which the attorneys say is not legal.

General is asking for a de novo review, meaning the appeals court would hear a new trial.

Scandinavian Tobacco Group (STG) owns General Cigar Co. The company sells the non-Cuban Cohiba brand exclusively in the U.S., though many of those same cigars are sold in international markets under the Silencio brand name. Habanos S.A., which is half-owned by the Cuban government, sells the Cuban-made Cohiba in countries outside the U.S.

General is represented by Andrew Deutsch, J. Kevin Fee and Stanley Panikowski.

https://www.scribd.com/document/930138916/General-Cohiba-Appeal-Oct-2-2025#download&from_embed

Source: https://halfwheel.com/general-asks-appeals-court-to-overturn-its-cohiba-trademark-loss-to-cuba/455193/

[laficion]

Hi all,

When will all this BS end??? It's getting very stupid. "WHY", firstly, the non-Cuban cigar, from my opinion & experience, is a very bad cigar with no taste and secondly, COHIBA is ONLY Cuban. Why is General cigar & co. using the name " COHIBA" to make a very poor cigar with a very high price?

There's no excuse.

Amicalement,

Guy

[westg]

21 hours ago, laficion said:

Hi all,

When will all this BS end??? It's getting very stupid. "WHY", firstly, the non-Cuban cigar, from my opinion & experience, is a very bad cigar with no taste and secondly, COHIBA is ONLY Cuban. Why is General cigar & co. using the name " COHIBA" to make a very poor cigar with a very high price?

There's no excuse.

Amicalement,

Guy

100%. So unoriginal. Sickening cigars. Maybe they should just ask nicely? 

[unaslob]

You’d think smoking one of those red dots would be enough to put them out of business. Miserable sticks even my NE standards, in my opinion. 

[JDoughty]

47 minutes ago, unaslob said:

You’d think smoking one of those red dots would be enough to put them out of business.  Miserable sticks even my NE standards imo 

Never been deluded enough to buy a red dot "Cohiba", but someone gave me a Cohiba Black and I smoked it. It was not actually terrible. Nothing great about it, but what flavor notes it had were reasonably pleasant. I don't know what they paid for it, but it was probably too much even though it was one of those small ones from a tin. Pequenos size if I recall. Would smoke again if it was offered to me, would not seek them out. 

[Ford2112]

I have been gifted 2 Cohiba NC before. One was actually smokeable, albeit unremarkable. The other was total ass. I bristle at any Non-Cuban cigar with a Cuban name anyway. If your tobacco is any good let it stand on its own two feet. 

[smashed]

I can't believe this is still ongoing. Should have been cut and dry.

[qs210]

15 hours ago, unaslob said:

You’d think smoking one of those red dots would be enough to put them out of business. Miserable sticks even my NE standards, in my opinion. 

They really are terrible.