United States—Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998
World Trade Organization, Appellate Body
WT/DS176/AB/R (February 1, 2002)

- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
Pernod Ricard was a French company that entered into a joint venture to make and sell Havana Club label rum with Cubaexport, a Cuban government trading agency. The joint venture obtained a trademark for the product. After Castro came into power, the operations in Cuba were seized, and all the assets were transferred to Cubaexport, including the trademark. In 1974, Cubaexport applied for and received a trademark for Havana Club rum in the United States (defendant). In 1994, Bacardi & Co. Limited, the maker of Bacardi rum, attempted to register Havana Club as a trademark also. The application was denied, but Bacardi began to market Havana Club rum anyway. Cubaexport then filed a lawsuit in federal court to prohibit the use of the trademark by Bacardi. After lobbying from Bacardi, the United States Congress passed a law as an attachment to the United States Omnibus Appropriations Act labeled as Section 211. Under this section, a Cuban national could not obtain or enforce a trademark that was confiscated by the Cuban government, unless the original owner consented. The European Communities challenged these provisions under the national-treatment and most-favored-nation principles of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) and the Paris Convention. The WTO Appellate Body considered these claims.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.