Cuban Cigar Company Sues Michigan Cigar Shop

[Buena Fortuna]

PLYMOUTH, Mich. -- A cigar lounge in suburban Detroit is decorated with paintings and photos of famous people with a stogie: John F. Kennedy, Winston Churchill, even the 1950s Cuban revolutionary Che Guevara.

"We have only one thing in common," said owner Ismail Houmani, a U.S. war veteran, pointing at a cigar in the fingers of Guevara, a Marxist rebel.

Cuba, however, believes the shop has too much common with its own famous cigar business. Cuba's government-owned tobacco company is suing Houmani in federal court in Detroit, claiming the name of his four shops, La Casa De La Habana, is illegal because it's too similar to its own franchised shops, known around the world as La Casa del Habano.

Cuba, of course, can't do business in America because of a nearly 50-year-old trade embargo imposed after Fidel Castro, with Guevara's help, turned the Caribbean island into a socialist state. Nonetheless, Cubatabaco claims it still has a right to protect its U.S. trademark even if it can't export prized Cuban cigars to U.S. shores.

"I love cases like this," U.S. District Judge Stephen Murphy III told both sides last year. "I find it to be extremely interesting and challenging."

Houmani's lawyer, Brad Smith, wonders why Cuba would care about a Michigan cigar lounge. "Small potatoes," he said in an interview.

Cubatabaco's lawyer, David Goldstein of New York, said in court that a trademark must be protected or "what I have is a worthless piece of paper."

In Plymouth, a suburb west of Detroit, La Casa De La Habana has been open about a decade. A climate-controlled humidor displays dozens of cigars, some costing $38 each, from Honduras, the Dominican Republic and Nicaragua. There is walk-in business, but customers also can have their own gym-locker-sized humidor with a nameplate for $100 a month.

There are televisions, leather couches and an espresso bar. In downtown Detroit, Houmani runs a 7,000-square-foot location offering martinis, live music and local handmade cigars stuffed with imported tobacco.

"Over a cigar, you can meet some interesting people -- doctors, lawyers, judges, movie actors. They want to sit down and relax," said Houmani, 42, who immigrated to Toledo, Ohio, from Lebanon when he was 18. "I wanted to create something that's really unique."

He said he was thinking about Cuba's reputation for Latin jazz, rum and cigars when he chose the name La Casa De La Habana, which means "The House of Havana" in Spanish. Houmani notes that "Habano," the word used in the name of Cuban shops, refers to a Havana cigar.

"I'm not selling or advertising Cuban cigars," he said.

International agreements allow government-controlled businesses like Cuba's to register trademarks in the U.S., even when dormant under an economic embargo. Still, Smith said the lawsuit should be governed by a simple rule: "You use it or lose it."

A trademark expert at the University of Michigan law school believes Cubatabaco has a strong case for infringement.

"Cuba's got reason to hope that it will be able to enter the U.S. market within the foreseeable future," Jessica Litman said. "Its mark is pretty valuable, and the potential for confusion seems real."

The judge has urged each side to settle the dispute out of court. Houmani concedes he may have to change the name of his business, although he would prefer to keep "La Casa" in it. He has much admiration for Cuba's cigars, despite the lawsuit and that country's communist government.

"It's the best tobacco in the world because of the soil. It's God's gift to the Cubans," said Houmani, who has smoked Cuban cigars during trips to the Middle East. "As cigar makers, we don't look at political affiliations."


Copyright 2011 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[TheRiddick]

Would like to know who contacted whom (made the first phone call), the NY lawyer or someone in Cuba, in deciding to pursue this. Business must be slow for NY lawyers? If I am open for 10 years now, shouldn't this weigh in on the case since Cuba was not pursuing the name infringement when the place opened?

[Blueface]

Originally Posted by TheRiddick

Would like to know who contacted whom (made the first phone call), the NY lawyer or someone in Cuba, in deciding to pursue this. Business must be slow for NY lawyers? If I am open for 10 years now, shouldn't this weigh in on the case since Cuba was not pursuing the name infringement when the place opened?

Better yet, how dare they try to use our courts to uphold infringement of trade names when they illegally seized the cigar companies from their rightful owners.

[TheRiddick]

Originally Posted by Blueface

Better yet, how dare they try to use our courts to uphold infringement of trade names when they illegally seized the cigar companies from their rightful owners.

Unfortunately, not many judges these days are schooled in history and morals... Would be nice to see the judge ask plaintiffs to produce documentation proving that Cuba compensated the families whose businesses were seized in order to validate today's infringement claims as legal and enforceable. But I know the judge won't...

[HK3-]

Wow, just wow.

[MarkinAZ]

I love the idiotic comment "and the potential for confusion seems real." I don't see any confusion what so ever between the names myself. So I'm wondering where the piss ant country of Cuba gets off by filing a frivolous lawsuit?

More important, I would think that some State and/or Federal statute would have tolled by now, since Mr. Houmani has been using an independant name for his businesses during the past 10 years.

It will be interesting to see what steps Mr. Houmani's commercial insurance carrier will take in this matter...

[akumushi]

While Cuba is obviously hypocritical when it comes to copyright infringement, does it really make it alright to say that because Cuba did it, Americans should do it back to them? While many of the old marcas; Partagas, Romeo y Julieta etc. are old names that were stolen from the people who owned the farms stolen in the revolution, in recent history most of the intellectual property "borrowing" has been going the opposite direction. Some of the more recent marcas like Cohiba are creations of Cubatobacco/Habanos S.A. and IMO, it's just as tacky and bad for the industry when businesses and manufacturers from the U.S. and the "other islands" steal Cuban trademarks than when the Cubans blatantly steal other's ideas. If the embargo does get lifted, it will only make what would have already been a huge legal nightmare even bigger, more expensive and uglier for everybody in the business. That kind of rip off marketing confuses a lot of new consumers who are already trying to navigate a dizzying array of choices no matter who is doing it.

[TheRiddick]

Clayton, do you know any cigar smoker in USA who is confused by the name of the retailer in Michigan and thinks Cuban cigars are sold there? Neither do I.

Unfortunately, as in most technological lawsuits, judges know (almost) nothing about a subject on hand (see various lawsuits on Facebook ownership as in blatant and brazen takeover of someone else's idea. Also, see Andressen's actions in regard to Netscape years ago, judges were stupid in each case, there are more similar cases out there). In any business there are subject matter specialists, yet our judicial system fails to understand that.

I also find it strange that a country that does not respect our laws nevertheless finds it convenient to sue someone in a USA court using OUR laws. Another point a judge will most likely miss on. The judge should tell them to move the lawsuit where it may matter, Havana proper, not that anyone there will be confused by a retailer in Michigan, either.

I still call "ambulance chaser" in NY lawyer and pretty much sure he is the one to instigate the matter.

[akumushi]

Greg, I think this went on for ten years because the other shops were in small towns around Michigan and the guy just opened a huge location in Detroit with much fanfare that obviously caught someone's attention. It certainly could have been some sleazy laywer, but it's more likely it was somebody within Altadis/Habanos noticiting the news about a new "world class LCDH" in Detroit. I agree that the confusion part makes no sense... NOW. But I'm pretty sure that Cuba is hoping to be selling cigars in the US market within the next ten years. Now, imagine a United States where the Embargo was lifted, and you ask your wife to go to the La Casa Del Habano and pick you up a Cohiba Robusto, and she brings you back a dominican Cohiba Robusto from La Casa De La Habana. Now the confusion is obvious, sure, this is not the way things are now, but if Cuba litigates now and sets a precident that they still have legitimate interest in U.S. copyrights, their battle will be easier down the road. This is a business decision that makes sense, even if you think the Cuban governent are hypocritcal @$$holes for doing it (I'm not going to disagree with you there!) I saw one of these stores near my in-laws house in Ann Arbor, and I think he also stole the tobacco leaf logo of the LCDH, and in other ways tried to make his stores look like and LCDH. It's not just a coincidence. Now, does this make it less ironic that communist bandits are crying crocodile tears over someone else playing their game? No, it's pretty silly when you think about it, but like I said, I think it's in poor taste when ANYONE rips someone else off, and lately in the cigar industry its been everyone else ripping off Cuba. Sure, payback's a b!tch and all, but think of this as Cuba playing a warmup game for the legal clusterf0ck that the lifting of the embargo will entail.

[357]

To be fair, I don't think LCDH was the official distributor of all Cuban cigars before the embargo. I am young and I don't know it for fact, but I would guess that the Cuban government created it as their means of distribution. Meaning that LCDH was not a privatly owned enterprise stolen via nationalization. I understand the Cigar brands were, but that is not at issue in this case. I agree with Greg's sentiment. If I were a judge presiding over this case, I would take as much of the history into account as I could.

I think they do have a legal claim to LCDH if it was not stolen. But then the argument remains that the two names are different. One means house of Habano (cuban cigars), while the other means house of Havana (a city).

The argument could be made that no government has the right to own a private (for profit) business. I know it happens, but I do not believe it is legal under our law.