Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - BlackIrish

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 364
1
ISOM / Re: Today's Smoke ISOM - ( August 2014)
« on: 08/11/2014 02:45 PM »
00 Rafael Gonzalez Coronas Extra

2
ISOM / Re: Today's Smoke ISOM - ( August 2014)
« on: 08/11/2014 02:44 PM »
Quote
mpurtle01 - 8/10/2014  6:37 PM

Robaina Unicos.  Thank you Eddie!  Fantastic!


Glad you enjoyed it.  These are very underrated cigars.  As good as Monte 2s and more reliable.

3
Quote
Brlesq - 8/11/2014  9:40 AM

Quote
BlackIrish - 8/11/2014  9:14 AM

Quote
toby2 - 8/10/2014  8:29 PM

Quote
BlackIrish - 8/10/2014  3:23 PM  Closest I've found is Canimao, and they're hard to find these days.

they had several boxes at F&M Cigars the last time I was there. I always pick up a few when I drop in.  



Quick threadjack:

If you ever find some Canimao coronas, do yourself a favor and buy one (or all) of them.  And if you don't buy all of them, let me know where you found them.  

Back to our regularly scheduled programming.


Usually I'm a virgin's thigh kinda guy, but their method is a nice change of pace.  :shades:

You only like these because you know how they rub the tobacco first . . . :shades:
http://www.canimaocigars.com/history.html

4
Today's Smoke / Re: Today's Smoke August 2014
« on: 08/11/2014 05:22 AM »
Last night:

Frank Llaneza 1961 corona gorda
Cabaiguan Guapos maduro

5
Quote
toby2 - 8/10/2014  8:29 PM

Quote
BlackIrish - 8/10/2014  3:23 PM  Closest I've found is Canimao, and they're hard to find these days.

they had several boxes at F&M Cigars the last time I was there. I always pick up a few when I drop in.  



Quick threadjack:

If you ever find some Canimao coronas, do yourself a favor and buy one (or all) of them.  And if you don't buy all of them, let me know where you found them.  

Back to our regularly scheduled programming.

6
How's life? / RE: Im Back
« on: 08/11/2014 05:10 AM »
Good to have you back!

7
Welcome!

8
Newbie Intros / Re: Newbie to site
« on: 08/11/2014 05:08 AM »
Thanks for saying hi, Clint.  Welcome!

9
General Cigar Discussion / Re: liberty 2014
« on: 08/10/2014 11:28 AM »
You should get in touch with the good folks at Cigars At Your Price, who sponsored this month's Greek Critique of the Liberty 2014.  http://cigarsatyourprice.com/index.php?route=product/manufacturer&manufacturer_id=1036

10
Mine is submitted.  Thanks CAYP and Kevin!

11
Closest I've found is Canimao, and they're hard to find these days.

12
Quote
Cigary - 8/10/2014  2:01 PM

Quote
Mojo66 - 5/8/2014  8:46 AM  What about Victor Sinclair Real Cuban Knock-Offs Montecristo No. 2, I have never had any but read they are very very close to the "real" thing

 Victor Sinclair???   I didn't see an "lol" after that but I did snicker to myself.  I'm thinkin that the VS Real Cuban knock off couldn't taste anything like a CC even if it was rolled by Castro himself....I could be wrong.

[/QUOTE

:word:

13
Today's Smoke / Re: Today's Smoke August 2014
« on: 08/08/2014 06:20 PM »
Camacho Liberty 2014

14
Jokes / Re: Deal you can't pass up!
« on: 08/08/2014 07:06 AM »
...and somehow I mustered the willpower to pass it up.

15

For those of you interested in knowing what's actually happening, here's a cut and paste from the PTO rejection.  No secret conspiracy here; very standard trademark law stuff.



UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)

OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION

 
    U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 77129912

    MARK: GRAN HABANO
 
    APPLICANT: SANTA CRUZ TOBACCO CO., INC.

 
OFFICE ACTION

ISSUE/MAILING DATE: 2/12/2014

THIS IS A FINAL ACTION.




Introduction

It is called to applicant’s  attention that Opposition no. 91152248 resulting in the decision of Corporacion Habanos S.A. v. Guantanamera Cigars Co., 102 USPQ2d 1085 (TTAB, 2012),  was resolved. Correspondingly, the suspension of action in this application has  been withdrawn and the following action instituted.

In  the previous Office actions dated May 24, 2007 and November 26, 2007, the  trademark examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark under  Trademark Act § 2(e)(2) and Trademark Act § 2(d).  In addition, applicant  was advised that it could claim distinctiveness of the proposed mark, GRAN  HABANO, for cigars made from Cuban seed tobacco in order to overcome the  primarily geographically descriptive refusal.   Further, two trademark applications filed prior to applicant’s mark,  which could have acted as bars to the registration of the mark, were cited  against applicant’s proposed mark.

Applicant  amended the application November 19, 2007, to fall under the provision of  Trademark Act § 2(f) (the word “Habano” was  disclaimed in the original application).   Action was suspended November 26, 2007, in order to await the outcome of  cited U.S. Trademark application no. 78-745,353.  Then, due to a change in the case law,  registration of the proposed mark was refused June 14, 2010, under Trademark  Act § 2(e)(3), because the proposed mark was primarily geographically  deceptively misdescriptive and the refusal to  register under Trademark Act § 2(d) was maintained.  Then action on the application was suspended December  22, 2010, awaiting the outcome of the pending application and resolution of  Opposition no. 91152248.  

Since  the pending trademark applications have been abandoned, Opposition no. 91152248  has been resolved, and the refusal to register under Trademark Act § 2(d)  withdrawn, the following action is instituted.    


The  trademark examining attorney maintains and now makes FINAL the refusal to  register in the summary of the issue below.  See 37 C.F.R.  §2.64(a); TMEP §714.04.


Summary of  issue made final that applicant must address:


Is the designation GRAN HABANO primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive of cigars made from Cuban seed tobacco?

 


Refusal



Registration has been refused under Trademark Act §§ 2(a) and 2(e)(3) because the designation, GRAN HABANO is primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive of cigars made from Cuban seed tobacco.  Since applicant has not claimed distinctiveness of its designation, which had developed prior to the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993, (although a claim of distinctiveness for the mark beginning July 28, 1997, was asserted in applicant’s response dated November 19, 2007), the basis of refusal under Trademark Act § 2(a) is inapplicable and has been withdrawn. See: In re California Innovations, Inc., 66 USPQ2d 1853 (Fed. Cir. 2003), and Corporacion Habanos S.A. v. Guantanamera Cigars Co., 86 USPQ2d 1473 (TTAB, 2008).

 

A mark is primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive if the following is shown:

 

(1) The primary significance of the mark is a generally known geographic place or location.

 

(2) The goods for which applicant seeks registration do not originate in the geographic place identified in the mark.

 

(3) Purchasers would be likely to make a goods-place association; that is, purchasers would be likely to believe that the goods originate in the geographic place identified in the mark.

 

(4) The misrepresentation regarding the geographic origin of the goods would be a material factor in a significant portion of the relevant consumers’ decision to buy the goods in question.

 

See In re Miracle Tuesday, LLC, 695 F.3d 1339, 1343, 104 USPQ2d 1330, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Cal. Innovations Inc., 329 F.3d 1334, 1341, 66 USPQ2d 1853, 1858 (Fed. Cir. 2003)); In re Les Halles De Paris J.V., 334 F.3d 1371, 1373, 67 USPQ2d 1539, 1541 (Fed. Cir. 2003); TMEP §1210.01(b)-(c); see also In re Spirits Int’l, N.V., 563 F.3d 1347, 1353, 90 USPQ2d 1489, 1493 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (holding that the test for materiality incorporates a requirement that a “significant portion of the relevant consumers be deceived”).

 

Cuba is the name of an island nation located in the Caribbean Sea, which has a population of over eleven million people and Havana, which has a population of over 2 million people, is the capital of Cuba and is known for the manufacture of excellent cigars. See the appended information reports taken from the internet: the on-line Encarta Dictionary, The Columbia Gazetteer of the World, and Encyclopedia Britannica. Overall, Cuba is an area in which tobacco is grown and premium cigars and tobacco products are produced. Columbia, supra. Further, the cigars produced in Havana, Cuba, are famous and renowned around the world. See: the articles taken from the internet via the Google.com search engine: Cornell University, Chronicalsonline, Alumna’s Photos; National Cigar Museum, Cuban Life & Boxes; Smokers-express.net, How to Buy Cigars as a Gift; JRCigars.com, Cigar Tobacco Growing Regions; and Historical Museum of Southern Florida, Arts & Crafts. In addition, in the case of Corporacion Habanos S.A. v. Anncas Inc., 88 USPQ2d 1785 (TTAB, 2008) (Anncas), (“Havana Club” for cigars determined to be primary geographically deceptively misdescriptive) evidence was presented to prove that the geographical portion of the mark was a generally known location. Ten English language dictionaries, The Columbia Gazetteer of North America and The Britannica Encyclopedia Online were submitted as evidence to prove that “Havana, Cuba” is a generally known geographical location. Anncas, supra, 1791. Based upon this evidence, it may be concluded that Havana, Cuba, is a generally known geographical location, which is neither remote nor obscure, where tobacco is produced and famous cigars originate.

The mark applicant seeks to register for its goods is GRAN HABANO.  Applicant translates the mark as “The Great Havanan.”  It would appear that Havanan is something from Havana.  And that is the meaning of Habano.  “Habano” is translated as either something “from Havana” or “a Havana cigar.”  See: the appended WordReference.com, Collins on-line Dictionary screen shot.  Applicant has translated “gran” as “great.”  See: also WordReference.com, Collins on-line Dictionary, appended.  The wording forming applicant’s designation would be translated either as a great Havana cigar or something great from Havana.    

 

Cuba is a place where cigars and tobacco products are produced. Would purchasers likely believe that applicant’s goods originate from Havana, Cuba? Stated another way, is there a goods/place association between the goods of applicant and Havana, Cuba? Further, is Havana, Cuba, known or renowned for cigars and tobacco products? The evidence produced in the Anncas case, supra, 1791, and the evidence noted above prove that the questions may be answered in the affirmative. The Trademark Trial & Appeal Board (Board) held in Anncas, supra, that Havana, which is in Cuba, is a location where cigars are produced; purchasers would associate Havana with applicant’s goods as the origin of those goods; and Havana is world-famous for the production of cigars. Further, in the case of Corporacion Habanos S.A. v. Guantanamera Cigars Co., 86 USPQ2d 1473, 1479 (TTAB, 2008), the Board indicated that: “Cuba is renowned for its tobacco and cigars” “Havana cigars, have brought Cuba world fame” and “one of Cuba’s main exports is ‘tobacco (notably cigars)’.”

 

A trademark examining attorney’s burden is to establish only that there is a “reasonable predicate” for concluding that the public is likely to believe a goods-place association; that is, the mark identifies a place from which applicant’s goods could conceivably originate. In re Miracle Tuesday, LLC, 695 F.3d 1339, 1344, 104 USPQ2d 1330, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Pacer Tech., 338 F.3d 1348, 1351, 67 USPQ2d 1629, 1631 (Fed. Cir. 2003)); see TMEP §1210.04(a). A goods-place association “often requires little more than a showing that the consumer identifies the place as a known source of the product.” In re Miracle Tuesday, LLC, 695 F.3d at 1344, 104 USPQ2d at 1333 (quoting In re Les Halles De Paris J.V., 334 F.3d 1371, 1373-74, 67 USPQ2d 1539, 1541 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).

 

Inferential evidence, such as geographical dictionaries, the LexisNexis® database, or Internet search results, is normally acceptable to establish a goods-place association. TMEP §1210.04; see e.g.,In re Wada, 194 F.3d 1297, 1300, 52 USPQ2d 1539, 1540-41 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding a goods-place association between New York and bags and related products where manufacturer listings and Nexis® excerpts showed that handbags and luggage were designed and manufactured in New York); In re Loew’s Theatres, Inc., 769 F.2d 764, 765-66, 768, 226 USPQ 865, 866, 868 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (holding a goods-place association between Durango and chewing tobacco where a gazetteer and dictionary showed that tobacco was a crop produced and marketed in Durango, Mexico).  In the present case, the attached evidence demonstrates a goods-place association between cigars and Havana, Cuba.

 

Has materiality been shown?  In the case of Corporacion Habanos S.A. v. Guantanamera Cigars Co., 102 USPQ2d 1085 (TTAB, 2012), the designation “GUANTANAMERA” for tobacco, namely, cigars was determined to be unregistrable because it was primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive. The Board determined that the evidence of record showed that a substantial portion of the relevant consumers in the United States speak or understand Spanish and that sellers of cigars in the United States sell non-Cuban cigars through branding and marketing associations in relation to Cuba because purchasers of cigars value associations with Cuba in making decisions to buy cigars. Guantanamera, supra, 1103, 1104. Therefore, “such consumers would be materially influenced in the decision to purchase applicant’s cigars due to the geographic meaning of the mark in the Spanish language.” Guantanamera, supra, 1104. The same would hold true here. Applicant’s mark is in Spanish and the proposed mark identifies cigars made from Cuban seed tobacco. The same purchasing population would be materially influenced to buy applicant’s cigars by the use of the proposed mark here, as was found to be influenced in the Guantanamera, case, that is, Spanish-speaking cigar purchasers. Correspondingly, materiality has been demonstrated.

Next, would purchasers understand the primary aspect of GRAN HABANO to be geographic?  As was previously stated, the designation GRAN HABANO is translated from Spanish as either a great Havana cigar or something great from Havana.  The relevant purchasers would understand that the designation directs attention to the origin of the cigars; they are either from Havana, Cuba, or are great Havana cigars, that is, cigars from Havana, Cuba.  Using either meaning of “Habano” produces the same result; the designation “Gran Habano” is a geographical indicator, which tells where the goods originate, when in fact the goods do not originate in Havana, Cuba.      

 

It could be argued that the goods are not just cigars, but cigars made with Cuban seed tobacco. Because the cigars are made with Cuban seed tobacco, the source, or origin, of the goods would be Cuba, so that the mark could not be geographically deceptively misdescriptive of the goods. This argument is unpersuasive. In the Anncas case, supra, the Board determined that four factors are necessary to produce a Cuban cigar. The tobacco, soil, climate, and the agricultural and manufacturing processes, which are only found and employed in Cuba, are necessary to produce a Cuban cigar. Anncas, supra, 1792. The Board stated that “there is little or no connection between the characteristics of ‘cigars made from Cuban seed tobacco’ and 100% or genuine Cuban cigars.” Anncas, supra, 1793. Identifying cigars as being “made with Cuban seed tobacco” does not mean they are cigars with their origins in Cuba, only cigars produced in Cuba can be called Cuban cigars. Correspondingly, applicant’s goods do not have their origin in Havana, Cuba, and the use of the word “Habano” for the goods misdescribes them.

 

Further, applicant has disclaimed the word “Habano.”  Would this obviate the refusal to register under Trademark Act § 2(e)(3)?  In the case of In re Wada, 52 USPQ2d 1539 (Fed. Cir. 1999), the Court of Appeals indicated that disclaiming a term in a mark, which is primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive, would not obviate the refusal to register the mark.

 

Finally, do applicant’s goods originate in Havana, Cuba? Applicant’s goods do not originate in Havana, Cuba, but in Miami, Florida.

 

The various points needed to prove that applicant’s designation GRAN HABANO is primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive of cigars made from Cuban seed tobacco have been met. The primary significance of the mark is a known geographic location, which is neither remote nor obscure; the cigars do not originate in Havana, Cuba; purchasers would make a goods-place association and believe that the goods would originate in the geographic location identified in applicant’s designation; and the misrepresentation regarding the geographic origin of the goods would be material to a purchaser’s decision to buy applicant’s goods. Correspondingly, the designation of GRAN HABANO is unregistrable under Trademark Act § 2(e)(3).

 

The refusal to register under Trademark Act § 2(e)(3) is here repeated and made final.


Appeal

 

Applicant must respond within six months of the date of issuance of this final Office action or the application will be abandoned. 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a). Applicant may respond by providing one or both of the following:

 

(1) A response that fully satisfies all outstanding requirements;

 

(2) An appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, with the appeal fee of $100 per class.

 

37 C.F.R. §2.64(a); TMEP §714.04; see 37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(18); TBMP ch. 1200.

 

In certain rare circumstances, an applicant may respond by filing a petition to the Director pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(2) to review procedural issues. 37 C.F.R. §2.64(a); TMEP §714.04; see 37 C.F.R. §2.146(b); TBMP §1201.05; TMEP §1704 (explaining petitionable matters). The petition fee is $100. 37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(15).