Before leaving his post, President Joe Biden enacted a law known as the No Stolen Trademarks Honored in America Act, a measure that has significantly intensified the ongoing political and commercial tensions between the United States and Cuba. This new legislation specifically prohibits the use of trademarks that were confiscated from thousands of Cuban citizens by Fidel Castro during the early 1960s. It also empowers companies, such as Bacardi—the current U.S. distributor of Havana Club rum—to pursue long-standing legal actions against the Cuban government regarding the Havana Club brand.

The battle over Havana Club rum showcases a historical conflict intertwined with Cold War remnants, featuring two owners who lay claim to the same brand, each with contrasting narratives. On social media, there are accounts that declare one brand as "official," utilizing folkloric imagery and promoting it as authentic Cuban rum, while another claims to be the "real" Havana Club. One version is produced in Cuba, and the other in Puerto Rico, with the former represented by the state-owned Cubaexport and the latter endorsed by Bacardi.

Central to the controversy are the issues of authenticity and rightful ownership: which rum embodies the true spirit of Cuba? In an assertive move, the Biden administration has essentially barred Havana from asserting rights over certain trademarks within the U.S. market. The newly passed Law H.R. 1505 explicitly forbids U.S. courts from recognizing trademark claims unless consent is obtained from the original owner.

The Backstory of the Rum Battle

Between 1959 and 1968, the Cuban government under Fidel Castro nationalized numerous properties, affecting thousands, including prominent families like the Arechabalas, who were behind the creation of Havana Club rum. This rum was originally crafted in 1934 at the La Vizcaya distillery by José Arechabala, a Spanish immigrant. Following the revolution, the Castro regime seized the Arechabala family’s assets, leading José to start anew as a car salesman in the United States.

Despite the upheaval, Havana Club continued production in Cuba. In 1993, Cubaexport forged a partnership with the French firm Pernod Ricard to market the brand internationally, excluding the U.S. where the trade embargo hindered sales.

Conversely, the American market embraced a rum named Havana Club, with Bacardi acquiring the brand and the original recipe in 1994. The saga of two competing rums emerged, coupled with political entanglements and narratives of exile. The Arechabala family has consistently claimed that their recipe was stolen, while Cuban authorities advocate for the rum produced on the island as the authentic version.

Legal clashes over the brand’s rights in the U.S. have spanned decades. In 1976, Cubaexport registered the Havana Club trademark, but facing restrictions imposed by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) complicated its renewal. By 2016, however, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office reinstated the rights of Cubaexport. Concurrently, Bacardi had initiated legal action against Cubaexport after the PTO declined to cancel its trademark in 2004, leading to a counter-lawsuit for trademark infringement by Cubaexport.

In a significant ruling in 2023, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Bacardi, further strengthening its position in the U.S. market.

Legislative Responses and Reactions

The recently passed law, introduced by Representatives Darrell Issa and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, has garnered support from various political figures, including former Senator Bob Menendez and Senator Marco Rubio. They framed the bill as a necessary step to protect individuals whose properties were expropriated during the early years of the Cuban Revolution. Representative Wasserman Schultz articulated the sentiments of Cuban-American voters, emphasizing the law as a restoration of dignity for families stripped of their wealth.

In response to the legislation, Pernod Ricard expressed concern, deeming the political decision as a violation of its longstanding rights to the Havana Club trademark, which they believe has been legitimately held since 1976. Cuban officials reacted strongly as well, characterizing the law as an aggressive move undermining one of their prized exports. Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla rallied against the law, asserting it not only violated international law but also aimed to obstruct Cubaexport’s trademark rights ahead of a crucial renewal scheduled for 2026.