ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Consumer Law Blogs -> 43(B)log

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Consumer Law

: 43(B)log

Deceptive place name not material

By Rebecca Tushnet

ADVERTISEMENTS
Guantanamera Cigar Co. v. Corporacion Habanos, SA., Civil Action No. 08-0721, 2010 WL 3035750 (D.D.C. Aug. 5, 2010)

The district court found, among other things, that the TTAB erred in finding that the term GUANTANAMERA for cigars not made in Cuba was deceptive and thus unregistrable, because it didn?t sufficiently support its materiality finding. The goods-place association was clear; the TTAB?s reasons for finding materiality were (1) Cuba?s ?renown and reputation for high quality cigars? and (2) the plaintiff?s subjective intent to deceive customers evidenced by previously placing ?Guantanamera, Cuba? and ?Genuine Cuban Tobacco? on the packaging. The district court rejected the first reason because in a previous case decided by the Federal Circuit, Moscow?s renown for vodka was not sufficient. The second reason was that the applicant?s subjective intent ?provides little, if any, insight into the minds of consumers. Consumers could have numerous reasons as to why they purchase Guantanamera cigars?. [T]he Court does not consider extraneous and out-dated marketing material particularly relevant in determining a mark?s ability to satisfy the §1052(e)(3) registration bar.?

I agree with John Welch that this ruling leaves unclear what, if anything, would count as a material deception, especially since many Americans are probably not aware of a lot of place names in Cuba that they more clearly recognize as a source of cigars or tobacco. I?m particularly surprised by the disregard for deliberate deceptiveness on the packaging, even if that was later eliminated because it was fraudulent?that tells us a lot about what the applicant wanted consumers to believe, and it?s pretty standard to presume that an intent to deceive is likely to succeed. Applicant, after all, probably is better placed to know what its customers want than outsiders.

Full post as published by 43(B)log on August 19, 2010 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0133 secs (new cache)