Beer Battle Lays Bare Ambiguity in 'Stolen' Cuban Trademark Law
April 4, 2025 – Media MentionLitigation Partner Steve Stein shared his insights with Bloomberg Law regarding the uncertainty created by the No Stolen Trademarks Honored in America Act, highlighting how the lack of clarity around who can assert rights under the law could either limit its practical effect or open the door to widespread challenges of Cuban-origin trademarks.
Excerpts:
The disparate interpretations “could have a chilling effect” on using Cuban marks or declare “open season,” IP attorney Steven Stein of Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman & Machtinger LLP said.
“It’s often the case that statutes are imperfectly drafted, and it’s not anticipated how they’ll be invoked,” he said. But who can claim the law’s protection is a “fundamental, basic principle.”
Even if the law was clearer on standing, who qualifies as a “successor-in-interest” presents another difficult question. The degree of connection to businesses confiscated 65 years ago that would have to be established to enforce long-dormant trademarks—which customarily expire when unused for three years—presents another novel question.
“The law could have been drafted better,” Stein said.
“As a practical matter this law may not have much in the way of teeth,” Stein said. He wasn’t sure where the court would land, but agreed the statute seems designed to protect wronged business owners and their successors—adding that limiting the law’s beneficiaries may not be inherently bad.
“Sometimes laws can be good even if they don’t have far-reaching implications,” he said.
“My belief is that a court would be pretty liberal in determining successor-in-interest,” Stein said. But sorting out successor rights to a business shut down during the Eisenhower administration will be “tricky,” he added, because it involves evidence that’s “going to be pretty stale.”
