Months after the enactment of a law aimed at resolving disputes over Cuban trademarks confiscated since the 1959 revolution, a legal battle over a beer trademark has underscored the law’s ambiguities. The No Stolen Trademarks Honored in America Act, enacted in December 2024, prohibits the enforcement of trademarks from companies taken over by Cuba’s communist government unless there is approval from the original owner or a successor.

The current dispute involves Heineken’s subsidiary Cerveceria La Tropical and Soltura LLC, a California brewer that began selling Cerveza Palma in 2018. Both companies are contesting the legitimacy of their respective trademark rights to products inspired by beers once made in Cuba. Cerveceria La Tropical, which launched Cerveza Tropi Crystal in 2023, argues that it holds successor rights to its name, whereas Soltura claims that the new law effectively invalidates La Tropical’s trademark rights.

A central aspect of the case revolves around who can invoke the protections of the new law. If only specified original owners and their recognized successors can assert their rights, the law’s reach may be severely limited. Conversely, if the law can be invoked by anyone claiming a connection, this could lead to a situation where all Cuban trademarks are effectively unprotected until a successor successfully claims them.

Legal experts point out that the ambiguity in the law’s language creates potential complications. Should the court classify only those with verified links to the pre-revolution owners as eligible to assert rights, it would require an examination of long-dormant businesses that may have left behind scant evidence. This introduces a complex layer regarding who qualifies as a "successor-in-interest," especially for companies related to brands that have not operated for decades.

The law, which builds upon a 1998 statute banning courts from recognizing trademarks outside the original owner’s consent, was initially intended to tackle the ongoing "Havana Club" rum conflict. However, it now entangles the brewing industry, leading to the argument that cases could arise where no one is able to challenge stolen trademarks effectively.

The potential outcome of this case could significantly influence the landscape for Cuban trademarks in the U.S., determining whether companies can retain their rights or if they must indefinitely navigate a convoluted legal framework. Ultimately, the case raises fundamental questions about trademark enforcement, the definition of successors, and the implications for doing business with brands connected to Cuba’s tumultuous history.