U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

98–627 PDF 2016

RESOLVING ISSUES WITH CONFISCATED 

PROPERTY IN CUBA, HAVANA CLUB RUM 

AND OTHER PROPERTY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

COURTS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, 

AND THE INTERNET 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 11, 2016 

Serial No. 114–62 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas 

DAVE TROTT, Michigan 

MIKE BISHOP, Michigan 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

SUZAN DelBENE, Washington 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

SHELLEY HUSBAND, Chief of Staff & General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, AND THE INTERNET

DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia, Vice-Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

SUZAN DelBENE, Washington 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

JOE KEELEY, Chief Counsel 

JASON EVERETT, Minority Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

FEBRUARY 11, 2016 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Darrell E. Issa, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet .......................................................................................... 1 

The Honorable Karen Bass, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California, and Member, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, 

and the Internet ................................................................................................... 3 

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Kurt Tong, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau 

of Economic and Business Affairs, U.S. Department of State 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 3 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 6 

Mary Boney Denison, Commissioner for Trademarks, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 10 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 12 

Rick Wilson, Senior Vice President, Bacardi-Martini, Inc. 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 47 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 50 

William A. Reinsch, President, National Foreign Trade Council 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 55 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 58 

Mauricio J. Tamargo, Poblete Tamargo LLP, former Chairman, Foreign 

Claims Settlement Commission of the United States, Department of Justice 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 65 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 68 

Lilliam Escasena, Cuban Property Claimant, Miami, FL 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 78 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 80 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Material submitted by the Honorable Darrell E. Issa, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of California, and Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet ................................................ 15 

Prepared statement of the Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 29 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Material submitted by Jaime Suchlicki, Emilio Bacadi Moeau Distinguished 

Professor and Director, Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies, 

University of Miami; and Jose Azel, Senior Research Associate, Institute 

for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies, University of Miami ....................... 94 
Page

IV 

Response to Questions for the Record from the Honorable Kurt Tong, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, 

U.S. Department of State .................................................................................... 99 

Questions for the Record submitted to Mary Boney Denison, Commissioner 

for Trademarks, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ......................................... 106 

Response to Questions for the Record from William A. Reinsch, President, 

National Foreign Trade Council ......................................................................... 109 

OFFICIAL HEARING RECORD 

UNPRINTED MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Material submitted by the Honorable Darrell E. Issa, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of California, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual 

Property, and the Internet. This material is available at the Subcommittee and 

can also be accessed at: 

http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=104453 
(1) 

RESOLVING ISSUES WITH CONFISCATED 

PROPERTY IN CUBA, HAVANA CLUB RUM 

AND OTHER PROPERTY 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2016 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, 

AND THE INTERNET

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 5:06 p.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Darrell E. 

Issa (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Issa, Goodlatte, Jordan, Poe, Chaffetz, 

Marino, DeSantis, Deutch, Bass, Richmond, and DelBene. 

Staff Present: (Majority) Joe Keeley, Chief Counsel; Eric Bagwell, 

Clerk; and (Minority) Jason Everett, Minority Counsel. 

Mr. ISSA. The Committee will come to order. 

Today’s hearing of the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual 

Property, and the Internet will be dealing with resolving issues 

with confiscated property in Cuba, which will include Havana Club 

rum and other property. 

The Subcommittee Ranking Member may be able to join us but 

has a conflict of interest, as will others. If they do attend—if they 

are able to be here, we will take their openings statements at that 

point. 

I would like to welcome everyone here today and ask unanimous 

consent that the Chair be authorized to declare recesses of the Subcommittee at any time. 

Today we have two distinguished panels, and I would ask—I 

guess we’ll swear them in, each panel. 

The witnesses have opening statements which will be entered 

into the record in their entirety. And I would ask, please, that during your 5-minute period that you summarize and stay within the 

5-minute period. As you know, the red lights, green lights, and yellow lights will indicate go, hurry up, and stop. 

Before I introduce the witnesses, Committee rules require that 

all witnesses be sworn. So what I’d ask, that you please rise to take 

the oath and raise your right hands. 
2 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are 

about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 

the truth? 

Please be seated. 

Let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

Our first panel of witnesses will be the Honorable Kurt Tong, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Economic 

and Business Affairs, United States Department of State; and Ms. 

Mary Denison, Commissioner for Trademarks for the United States 

Patent and Trademark Office. 

I’ll now recognize myself for an opening statement. 

Today’s hearing is on the integrity of the patent and trademark 

system. 

Over 50 years ago, the people of Cuba entered into an era of religious persecution, property seizures, and political oppression. Families who had worked for years to build a future for they and their 

families lost everything and were forced to flee the country or, 

worse than that, be imprisoned in Cuban jails. 

In response to Cuba’s alliance with the then-Soviet Union, its totalitarian dictatorship under communism, America began a trade 

embargo to deny Castro and his allies the benefits of free trade. 

In 1999, American policy further prevented the recognition by 

the United States Government of trademarks seized by Cuba. A 

drafting error in section 211, or what has come to be known as a 

drafting error, made the legislation subject to a challenge by those 

who want to do nothing more than, in fact, trade with a dictator. 

To fix the drafting error, I have become an original cosponsor of 

the No Stolen Trademarks Honored in America Act of 2015. The 

law simply would—the change in the law would simply take out 

references to a single country but, in fact, still cover the category 

that would include the wrongful taking of these trademarks. 

In the case of the Havana Club example, a family business was 

seized at gunpoint with no compensation. Forced into exile, the 

family was unable to restart their business on their own and chose 

to partner with Bacardi, another company. The Ricard business of 

France chose to partner with the Communist regime in Cuba and 

purchase and agree to distribute under the name ‘‘Havana Club’’ 

throughout the rest of the world. 

The United States—and, I must say, the United States alone— 

chose not to allow the sale and, thus, the profiteering by the Cuban 

Government based on their theft. And let us understand clearly 

that we are still dealing with a Cuban-made product in which the 

people of Cuba work for maybe $20 a month to produce rum so the 

Cuban Government can sell it at a price that benefits their regime. 

So the technicality that, in fact, we have a French Governmentowned, partially owned, enterprise that will testify indirectly today 

that they bought it and of course they’re simply entering into business is, in fact, inaccurate. In the case of the trademark in dispute, 

it was not a French company partially owned by the country of 

France but, in fact, the Cuban Government that applied for the 

trademark—the very Cuban Government that had seized it illegally. 
3 

With the passage of time, Cuban Americans also have sought to 

be repaid for stolen homes and businesses. On our second panel, 

we will have a former member of the claims board and a personal 

testimony of someone who is still trying to recoup that which was 

stolen from her family by this dictatorship. 

I’ll now recognize the Ranking Member for her opening statement. 

Ms. BASS. Why, thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I thank our witnesses for coming today. 

And I will say—excuse me, let me take a minute here to wrestle 

with the microphone—I was pleased when the President announced 

that he was working to normalize relations with Cuba. This shift 

in policy is really long overdue for a country that is 90 miles away. 

And we’ve denied American businesses. This is an issue that has 

been big in California, frankly, because there’s a lot of California 

businesses across many different categories that are willing and 

ready to be involved in this important market. 

I want to take the opportunity here to say what I think is at 

stake here. There are hundreds of U.S. companies with thousands 

of trademarks that are registered in Cuba. So I’m worried that 

American businesses rely on the validity of the treaties that we 

sign to protect their interests abroad. The General Inter-American 

Convention for Trade Mark and Commercial Protection, the IAC, is 

such a treaty, and it’s been signed by 10 countries, including the 

United States. And so I’m concerned that our actions will impact 

U.S. interests not only in Cuba but in eight other countries who 

could subsequently choose not to honor the IAC. 

With regard to some of the issues that have come up—that I 

know will come up, like expanding section 211, I agree that we risk 

doing more harm than good. I’m worried that when an entity as 

reputable as the National Foreign Trade Council tells me that 

we’re about to violate a treaty that protects U.S. businesses—especially when considering that Cuba has consistently honored the 

IAC in favor of U.S. companies. 

So, for example, there’s the Olin Corporation who sought to protect its famous rifle trademark, Winchester. And based on the IAC 

convention, Cuba ruled in favor of Olin over a non-U.S. company. 

So I’m concerned that by looking at this issue, really, when it’s 

already in the judicial branch, that we run the risk of looking like 

we’re trying to improperly influence an ongoing case. So those are 

my concerns, and I am hoping that through the testimony of the 

panelists that they can clarify this. 

Thank you. And I yield back. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. 

And we now go to our panel of witnesses. 

Mr. Tong, you have an opening statement? The gentleman is recognized. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE KURT TONG, PRINCIPAL 

DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF ECONOMIC 

AND BUSINESS AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Mr. TONG. Well, thank you, Chairman Issa, and thank you, 

Members of the Committee. And good evening. I appreciate the op-
4 

portunity to testify today on topics related to confiscated property 

in Cuba, Havana Club rum, and other property. 

The protection of intellectual and real property rights is an important issue for American innovators, entrepreneurs, and businesses and deserves the close attention and vigorous efforts of multiple branches of the U.S. Government. 

In my testimony today, I will first describe briefly the role of the 

Department of State and, in particular, my bureau, the Bureau of 

Economic and Business Affairs, with respect to intellectual property enforcement and protection and international claims and disputes. I’ll also provide an overview of the recent claims discussions 

with the Cuban Government. And then, finally, I’ll discuss the 

State Department’s role in the Havana Club matter. 

The Department of State’s Economic Bureau uses economic diplomacy to advance the prosperity and security of all Americans by 

working hand-in-hand with other U.S. Government agencies and 

partners around the world to promote good economic policies as 

well as to negotiate and implement agreements that shape the 

rules of global commerce. 

One of the Department’s foremost priorities is the promotion of 

innovation in the United States and around the world. We do this, 

in part, by advocating for effective protection and enforcement of 

intellectual property rights. Specifically, the Department uses diplomatic outreach and programs and bilateral and multilateral negotiations to ensure the interests of American rights-holders as well 

as to highlight the critical role of intellectual property rights protections in supporting economic growth and stability. 

We also devote substantial resources to supporting the development of a satisfactory climate for U.S. investment overseas, which 

includes assisting U.S. investors involved in investment disputes 

with foreign governments. In this regard, we work closely with the 

Department’s Office of the Legal Adviser, which represents the 

United States and coordinates activities with respect to claims and 

international disputes. 

In the case of Cuba, the Department is continuing to advocate for 

the resolution of all outstanding U.S. claims and disputes in our bilateral relations. We launched government-to-government claims 

talks in Havana on December 8th last year, and through these 

claims talks we are seeking compensation or some other form of appropriate redress from the Cuban Government for these longstanding U.S. claims. 

The U.S. delegation at the talks provided an overview of the U.S. 

claims against the Government of Cuba. These include almost 

6,000 claims of U.S. nationals related to confiscated property that 

were certified by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission as 

well as claims related to unsatisfied U.S. court judgments against 

Cuba, in addition to the claims of the U.S. Government. 

The meeting in Havana was the first step in what is expected to 

be a complex process, but the United States views the resolution 

of outstanding claims as a top priority. 

With this in mind, I would like to finally address the specific 

case of Havana Club, which is quite a different sort of matter than 

the unresolved U.S. claims issues that I just mentioned. 
5 

As you may know, this case concerns a dispute between foreign 

actors—on one side, the Cuban state-owned enterprise, Cubaexport, 

which is in a joint venture with a French company, Pernod Ricard; 

and, on the other side, Bacardi and Company Limited, a company 

headquartered in Bermuda. These foreign companies are involved 

in pending Federal court proceedings in the United States with regard to their dispute over ownership of the Havana Club trademark in the United States. 

The Department of State’s role in the Havana Club matter was 

to respond to a request from Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets 

Control, or OFAC, for foreign policy guidance. To be clear, our role 

in the Havana Club matter was not to adjudicate the ownership of 

the disputed trademark rights, which is a matter still before our 

Federal courts, and the Department took no position on that issue 

in its foreign policy guidance. 

To be a bit more specific, in November 2015, OFAC requested 

foreign policy guidance from the State Department with respect to 

an application from Cubaexport for a specific license authorizing all 

transactions with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office related to 

Cubaexport’s renewal and maintenance of the Havana Club trademark registration, including payment of necessary fees. 

The Department evaluated this referral in light of a number of 

factors, including: the particular facts of the case; the recent shift 

in United States policy toward Cuba; United States foreign policy 

with respect to key allies in Europe; and the U.S. approach with 

respect to trademark rights associated with confiscated property. 

After weighing these factors, the Department recommended issuance of the requested specific license. 

It is in the foreign policy interest of the United States that the 

relevant parties be able to reach a resolution in this longstanding 

dispute. As I mentioned, there are pending Federal court proceedings, and the denial of a license and the resulting expiration 

of the trademark registration may have rendered those proceedings 

moot, whereas granting the license will allow the parties to proceed 

toward adjudication of their respective legal claims in U.S. courts 

of law. 

In closing, I wish to reaffirm that the Department of State will 

continue to advocate for the effective protection and enforcement of 

intellectual property rights around the world, including and especially in Cuba. This effort is squarely in line with our enduring objective of the emergence of a peaceful, prosperous, and democratic 

Cuba. 

The Administration’s approach to Cuba allows us to effectively 

engage with Cuba on seeking redress for U.S. claims, for protection 

of intellectual property rights, and a number of other matters in 

the national interest. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I welcome your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tong follows:] 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. 

Commissioner? 

TESTIMONY OF MARY BONEY DENISON, COMMISSIONER FOR 

TRADEMARKS, U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 

Ms. DENISON. Chairman Issa and Members of the Committee—— 

Mr. ISSA. If you could pull it slightly closer. Your voice doesn’t 

carry as well as the Secretary’s. 

Ms. DENISON. How’s this? Is that better? 

Mr. ISSA. Better. 

Ms. DENISON. Thank you so much. 

I appreciate the opportunity to describe the U.S. Patent and 

Trademark Office’s role with respect to the renewal of the Havana 

Club trademark registration today. 

The USPTO is charged with carrying out the trademark registration process consistent with the law so as to provide a stable marketplace for the sale of goods or services identified by the registered mark for the benefit of both consumers and owners. 

The USPTO receives more than 300,000 applications for trademark registration each year and administers a trademark register 

of more than 2 million active registrations. 

As a general matter, U.S. trademark law requires the submission 

of certain documents and the payment of appropriate fees to maintain and renew a trademark registration. The actions we took at 

the USPTO in this case were straightforward and consistent with 

the law. 

In 1974, Cubaexport applied for registration of the Havana Club 

trademark at the USPTO. The USPTO approved the registration in 

1976 and renewed it in 1996. The transactions were authorized 

under an existing general license pursuant to the Cuban Assets 

Control Regulations. 

In October 1998, however, Congress included section 211 as part 

of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, which rendered that general license unavailable for transactions or payments for certain trademarks. As a result, when Cubaexport attempted to renew the Havana Club trademark registration in 2005, the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, known as OFAC, advised 

the USPTO and Cubaexport that a specific license would be required to authorize the payment of renewal fees. Cubaexport could 

not legally pay the required fees without an OFAC-specific license 

authorizing the transaction. 

Cubaexport applied for a specific license from OFAC, and OFAC 

denied the application. Because the requirements of trademark law 

could not be met without an OFAC specific license authorizing the 

fee payment, the USPTO was unable to renew the registration. 

Cubaexport then sought review of the USPTO’s refusal by filing 

a petition with the USPTO, the same petition that we acted on in 

January. Because Cubaexport also sued OFAC over its decision not 

to issue Cubaexport a specific license authorizing the fee payment, 

the USPTO suspended action on the petition until that litigation 

was over. Cubaexport’s challenges in Federal court were ultimately 

unsuccessful. 

In November of 2015, Cubaexport submitted a new specific license application to OFAC, and OFAC issued the requested license 
11 

on January 11, 2016. On January 12, 2016, Cubaexport supplemented its USPTO petition to include an OFAC-specific license authorizing the 2005 payment of fees and all other transactions necessary to renew and maintain the Havana Club registration. 

Because Cubaexport had satisfied the requirements of the Trademark Act, the USPTO took action to accept the now-authorized fee, 

to grant the petition, and to update the USPTO’s records to reflect 

the renewed status of the Havana Club registration. This action 

does not, however, decide the Havana Club trademark dispute. The 

rights of all interested parties remain the same as they were before 

the action was taken. 

That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman, and I would be 

happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Denison follows:] 
12 
13 
14 

*Note: The material referred to is not printed in this hearing record but is on file with the 

Subcommittee. Also, see Issa submission at: 

http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=104453 

Mr. ISSA. Excellent. 

I now ask unanimous consent that the entire list of the 6,000 certified recipients under the Foreign Claims Settlement Act be placed 

in the record.* 

Additionally, I ask unanimous consent that the June 11, 1974, 

complete set of documents applying for the trademark by the country of Cuba entered by the law firm of Haseltine, Lake & Walters 

be placed in the record; the testimony of Ramon—and I apologize 

in advance for how I’m going to get this—Arechabala, that Ramon’s 

testimony of 2004 be placed in the record; The Washington Post article of February 1, 2016, ‘‘Failure in Cuba,’’ be placed in the 

record. It is an editorial; and lastly, 0my letter yesterday to the 

Secretary Kerry and Lew, along with attached signatures of a number of other Congressmen, be placed in the record. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 

Mr. ISSA. And I’d like to make sure the record indicates that the 

Ranking Member is not here as a result of a conflict of schedule— 

the interest being the schedule, not a conflict of interest. 

And, with that, I’d ask unanimous consent that all Members’ 

opening statements be placed in the record. 

But, Mr. Chairman, would you like to ask a round of questions? 

Okay. In that case, I will go first and ask my list of questions. 

And, Commissioner, I probably only have one question—a couple 

of questions for you, fairly briefly. But one of them is—you didn’t 

mention 2012. That was when all the cases were resolved. And the 

Commission could have vacated all the documents, correct? 

In other words, 2012, when the cases were decided, in the ordinary course, this application would have been gone, the trademark 

would have been available under common law and registration law. 

Isn’t that true? 

You said you had held up—suspended this case while other cases 

were pending. But those cases were resolved, what, 2 years ago? 

Ms. DENISON. There was litigation that was pending—— 

Mr. ISSA. Just, when did the last piece of litigation end, to your 

knowledge? 

Ms. DENISON. In 2012. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. So litigation ended in 2012. Your excuse for 

holding up and keeping this in limbo so that the Administration 

could act ended in 2012. Isn’t that true? You had no valid reason 

to leave this file open as it was, did you? 

Ms. DENISON. Mr. Chairman, let me explain a little bit about the 

petition process. 

Mr. ISSA. No, ma’am. I appreciate the petition process, but I only 

have 5 minutes. 

On what basis—there was a conflict known. There was a competing company that had purchased the rights from the family, was 

sharing the profits in those sales with the family. And they, in fact, 

also had valid applications, and they had been selling the product 

in common law since 1994. 

So, in 2012, on what basis did you keep this open so that could 

you could retroactively go back to 2005? 

Ms. DENISON. Well, first of all, there is no set timeframe for us 

to issue a decision on a petition. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. 

Ms. DENISON. We receive thousands of petitions every year, and 

some of them are acted on very—— 

Mr. ISSA. Well, I know you acted on this one in 3 days. 

Ms. DENISON. And some of them are acted on in a matter of 

years. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. So let me just make one thing clear for the 

record. From 2012, any statement that you were waiting on a court 

case to end ended. And from 2012 until 2015, the case simply sat 

open, waiting for OFAC or somebody else to do something, because 

there was no—your basis for suspending had ended. Isn’t that 

true? 

Ms. DENISON. Actually, after the litigation ended, there was an 

extended period where there was back-and-forth between our office 

and OFAC before we could have acted. And—— 
27 

Mr. ISSA. Yeah, but that wasn’t the question, Commissioner. The 

question was—you said in your testimony that you held this in suspense because of a case. Now, that case went to the U.S. Supreme 

Court. Ultimately, they, by not granting cert, affirmed the lower 

court case, and it was over. The Supreme Court had spoken and 

essentially allowed the lower court. So there were no court issues 

left. 

So the fact that you were going back and forth with OFAC, all 

of that is a political question and answer, so to speak, to do what 

the current Administration—and, Mr. Secretary, I think you said 

it very well. You were trying to reach out to deal with Cuba, the 

relationship. So this became a tool, I would gather, in that negotiation. Isn’t that correct, Mr. Secretary, that this was on the table 

as part of negotiations? 

Mr. TONG. The issue of Havana Club, to my knowledge, was not 

discussed in our conversations with Cuba regarding the normalization of diplomatic relations. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. So it was never on the table, you’re saying, as 

far as you know. 

Mr. TONG. As far as I know. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. 

Commissioner, would you provide us with written communications and memos related to correspondence with other agencies outside the Patent and Trademark Office for purposes of the decision 

process related to the delay until 2015? 

Ms. DENISON. Yes, I can. I’m not sure there is any. 

Mr. ISSA. So it was just oral conversations, just chatter? 

Ms. DENISON. To my knowledge, there is no written communication. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. Well, if you would check, I would appreciate it. 

Mr. Secretary, I’ve got a question for you. You said in your statement that your goal, the Administration’s goal, of course, is to restore people, to strengthen personal property and the like. 

I’m going to use a little bit of demonstration. Here’s two tangible 

bottles. This one is Cuban-made; it’s empty. This one is Americanmade; it’s full—or half-full, not by my consumption. These are tangible products. 

This one is made in Puerto Rico, where there are about 1,400 

workers, American workers, earning $40,000 or so a year. This is 

made in Cuba by people making about $20 a month. Now, under 

your decision, people making $20 a month are going to be shipping 

this to the U.S. and people in Puerto Rico making $40,000 a year 

are going to be laid off. 

If I take it to its logical conclusion, I could hold up bottles of Bacardi, which the Cubans have the exact same claim on, that they 

seized it, it was theirs, and they asserted around the world that it 

was there. Would you have the $100 million that the Puerto Rican 

Government gets from Bacardi tax revenues every year and the 

1,000-plus jobs eliminated by giving Bacardi back to Cuba as a 

question of renewing our policies? Is that on the table? And is there 

any real difference, from a foreign policy, of whether or not you 

give away one family’s rights or another’s? 

Mr. TONG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
28 

My understanding is that the economic impact of the patent or 

the trademark registration has not yet played out, that the ownership of the Havana Club trademark continues to be a matter before 

U.S. Federal courts and that that matter will be settled in U.S. 

Federal courts. 

Mr. ISSA. Well, you know, the man who it was taken from has 

died. So I’m not sure that there will ever be justice in that economic impact. And the son is working for a company and not able 

to produce the product his family had produced since the thirties. 

But my time has expired. I have to be sensitive to all here. The 

gentlelady from California, Ms. Bass, is recognized. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I wanted to know if either witness could talk a little bit more 

about section 211 and the impact of that. 

You know, as I’m reading some of the material here, the Cuban 

Government has threatened to violate the trademark rights of U.S. 

companies because we haven’t repealed section 211. And I guess 

there’s some consideration about expanding it. 

So I’m wondering if you can talk a little bit more about that and, 

also, within the context of that, discussing the possible implications 

for U.S. business interests in the eight other countries who are 

part of the IAC. So I know, in some instances, it’s viewed that we 

might be violating the international treaty or it will weaken our 

ability to protect U.S. intellectual property interests in the eight 

other countries. 

So perhaps you could comment about 211 and explain. 

Either one. Whichever. 

Mr. TONG. I guess I can start, and my colleague may want to amplify. 

Section 211 is a statute which is under—the interpretation of 

which comes to OFAC. So I can’t speak on their behalf with regard 

to that interpretation. But my understanding is that a specific license can be granted regardless of the existence of section 211. 

With regard to the broader diplomatic elements of intellectual 

property rights protection, this is something that we obviously 

work on very, very hard with a lot of countries. And we’re looking 

forward to the opportunity, as I said earlier, to pursuing the protection of intellectual property rights in a vigorous fashion in Cuba 

now that we have a better opportunity to pursue those protections. 

The question of section 211 has come up in the World Trade Organization, and the United States was, if you will, taken to dispute 

by—dispute settlement by the European Union some years ago 

with respect to section 211. And that was a longstanding point of 

disagreement between the United States and the European Union. 

Since the granting of the specific license and then the trademark 

to Havana Club, there has been a noticeable lessening of the European Union’s level of interest in that issue. So, in a sense, we have 

made some progress in the overall strategy of intellectual property 

rights protection and cooperation with Europe as a result of this 

one specific case. 

Ms. BASS. Should it be repealed, that section? 

Mr. TONG. I don’t have an Administration position to convey to 

you on that matter. 
29 

Ms. BASS. Do you know of any instances in which Cuba has 

failed to honor its obligations under the IAC in relation to U.S. 

companies? 

Mr. TONG. I’m going to have to get back to you on that because 

that’s a rather specific question and I’m not researched on it. 

Ms. BASS. Do you have any concern over the thousands of trademarks that are registered in Cuba from U.S. companies? 

Mr. TONG. Absolutely. My understanding is that there’s somewhere in the range of 5,000 U.S. trademarks that are active in 

Cuba. And the protection of those trademarks is of great interest 

to the United States, and we need to pursue it vigorously. 

Ms. BASS. So one of the questions is, if we move toward closer 

and better relations with Cuba, are we in a better position to protect those trademarks than if we were to roll back the direction 

that the Administration is pursuing now? 

Mr. TONG. In the Administration’s estimation, yes, we are in a 

better position to pursue this entire topic of intellectual property 

rights protection with Cuba based upon our recent approach. In 

fact, we’ve gotten some positive feedback from the Cuban Government with regard to their openness toward having detailed and 

specific conversations about intellectual property rights protection. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you. 

Would you like to add anything, Ms. Denison? 

Ms. DENISON. I think he did a great job. 

Ms. BASS. Okay. I yield back my time. 

Mr. ISSA. The gentlelady yields back. 

The Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Goodlatte. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your 

holding this hearing. I submit my opening statement for the record. 

And I’m happy to yield to you so you can continue your excellent 

line of questioning. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Goodlatte follows:] 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary 

At the core of the House Judiciary Committee priorities are the fundamental constitutional rights guaranteed to Americans such as freedom of speech, freedom of 

the press, freedom of religion, and freedom from having the government confiscate 

your property without compensation. Although the United States was initially one 

of only a few countries with such explicit guarantees for its citizens, more countries 

began to recognize such basic rights for their citizens as well. Decades after Soviet 

aggression created an Iron Curtain across Europe, Eastern Europeans rose up to reclaim their rights from governments that had long oppressed them. 

Cuba’s version of the Iron Curtain arrived in the 1960s, bringing property seizures of churches, homes, and businesses while locking up and even executing those 

who objected. Many were forced into exile in America. Some of the property seizures 

were for properties and assets that were owned in whole or in part by Americans 

including homes, businesses, and financial investments. No one—American, Cuban, 

or otherwise—was compensated for the seizures of their property. 

In 1964, Congress directed the International Claims Commission, now known as 

the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission at the Department of Justice, to undertake a process to enable American citizens and businesses to submit evidence to 

prove their property seizure claims. Almost 6,000 claims submitted by Americans 

were certified with an estimated value in 1970’s dollars of close to $2 billion dollars. 

No money has ever been paid by Cuba to settle these or other claims. 

Although these claims are grounded in numbers and paperwork, they reflect personal and direct losses to individuals and their families whether they were: 

• Businesses whose shipments of merchandise were never paid for 
30 

• Family homes of those forced into exile in America 

• Family businesses such as the Arechabalas 

• Retirees who were counting on their investments in Cuban businesses to provide for their income 

Reflecting the direct personal impact upon families, one of our witnesses here 

today is from a family that was forced into exile, leaving everything they had 

worked for behind in order to live in exile in Florida. 

The Administration has long been interested in restoring diplomatic relations 

with Cuba, believing that reopening relations would lead to greater freedoms for Cubans. However, its tactics have been nothing short of bizarre. Just one year ago tomorrow, Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and I sent a letter to the Bureau of 

Prisons demanding answers to the Administration’s efforts in facilitating the artificial insemination of the wife of a convicted Cuban spy, Gerardo Hernandez, even 

though he was convicted on 13 counts, including conspiracy to commit murder. The 

answer from the Bureau of Prisons was less than illuminating. Only a few months 

ago, Gerardo Hernandez’s sentence was commuted by President Obama after which 

he returned home to a triumphant meeting with Fidel Castro where he was unrepentant for his crimes. 

Since the reopening of U.S.-Cuban diplomatic relations last summer, it appears 

little has changed for Cubans not favored by the regime. In September, members 

of a dissident group known as the Ladies in White were arrested as they traveled 

to see the Pope to advocate for human rights. In December, they were arrested 

again as they protested in support of basic human rights on the day known as 

United Nations Human Rights day. 

This Administration has failed to aggressively seek compensation for property 

seized by Castro’s regime and failed to stop the persecution of Cubans advocating 

for basic human rights. Meanwhile it has assisted a convicted Cuban spy to artificially inseminate his wife from a U.S. prison, something no other federal prisoner 

has been allowed to do. 

Today’s hearing will help shed light on the Administration’s response, or lack 

thereof, to the confiscation of property, including trademarks, by the Castro regime. 

I look forward to the witnesses’ testimony. 

Mr. ISSA. Well, I’m going to continue somewhat, but I’m going to 

change a little bit. 

Commissioner, H.R. 1627, you’ve seen the legislation that proposes changes to 211, correct? And it does eliminate any specific 

reference to Cuba. And it makes 211 essentially an impediment to 

those who would steal somebody’s property and then try to—in another country and then gain use of it here. 

Do you have any questions or doubts about its validity under 

WTO? 

Ms. DENISON. I’m sorry, could you—— 

Mr. ISSA. H.R. 1627, you can implement it if it’s passed by the 

Congress, right? The Trademark Office hasn’t issued any objections 

or anything that would cause us to think you have a problem—— 

Ms. DENISON. I understand there are a number of proposals 

pending, and there is no Administration position on any of them, 

to my knowledge. 

Mr. ISSA. Well, that’s why you’re a Commissioner. Have you read 

it, and do you have any problem with it? 

Ms. DENISON. I am not authorized to state a position without the 

Administration position being—— 

Mr. ISSA. I’ll remember that when we talk about the independence of commissions. 

Mr. Secretary, since they’ve sent you here, you mentioned that 

you were concerned about 211. You mentioned that essentially giv-
31 

ing this trademark back to Cuba ameliorated friction between us 

and our French partners and so on. 

Where does the family get compensation for your benefit? You 

got the benefit. You’ve improved relationships. The original owners 

got screwed, right? Are you planning to make them whole in return 

for the benefit you got? 

Mr. TONG. Well, my understanding is that the trademark—— 

Mr. ISSA. You traded real property that belonged to somebody. 

Mr. TONG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The trademark in question is being litigated in U.S. courts as of 

this date. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. 

Well, let me go through a question. Commissioner, I hope you 

can answer this without going back. And I’m not sure you can. But, 

in 1974, the Cuban Government applied for a trademark, and it 

was granted. There was an embargo at that time. They could not 

legally give you $35. Where did they get permission to give you the 

$35? 

And I understand that some law firm submitted it and somebody 

in Luxembourg did it. But the mark went to Cuba; therefore, it was 

clearly Cuban money. 

On what basis did you grant them the trademark, to your knowl- edge? What was your legal authority to take that $35 then? 

Ms. DENISON. Thank you for the question. 

When Cubaexport applied for the trademark application in 1974, 

they were allowed to proceed under the general license provision of 

the Cuban Asset Control Regulations. So there was no problem accepting money. 

Mr. ISSA. You had no problem accepting their $35. 

Ms. DENISON. That is correct. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. Well, we’ll check into that. That’s not what we’re 

told. 

Additionally, instead of an intent to use, they filed based on having a trademark in Cuba. They simply submitted an attached 

trademark from Cuba and said, ‘‘This is our application for the 

same,’’ correct? 

Ms. DENISON. Yes. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. 

Now, interesting thing about trademarks, if anybody other than 

Cuba applied for a trademark, let’s say Darrell Issa, and then went 

more than a decade of not selling one single drop, one single bottle, 

would their trademark still be valid and enforceable? 

Ms. DENISON. It might be if they could show—there’s a section 

of the statute that is called excusable non-use. And, in certain situations, use is not required. So, for example, if there’s an embargo—— 

Mr. ISSA. Well, let me go through that, because embargo was exactly what was in place. At the time of the application, there was 

an embargo. So they filed saying they were going to do something 

that they couldn’t do legally and can’t do today. Isn’t that true? 

Ms. DENISON. No, that’s not correct. 

Mr. ISSA. Can they ship to the United States today, madam? 

Ms. DENISON. No, they cannot, but—— 

Mr. ISSA. Could they ship to the United Stats in 1974? 
32 

Ms. DENISON. No. 

Mr. ISSA. Has there been any period of time between 1974 and 

today in which they could ship to the United States? 

Ms. DENISON. No. 

Mr. ISSA. Do you ordinarily accept and provide trademarks excluding others when, in fact, they’re not entering commerce? 

Ms. DENISON. We have to honor our treaty obligations. And this 

was filed under a treaty obligation—— 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. 

Now, the family—— 

Ms. DENISON [continuing]. Known as section 44(e). 

Mr. ISSA. Right. The family, through Bacardi, has tried to renew 

their activity and, in fact, has an application pending. And the only 

thing working against them is that, when they had no money, extenuating circumstances, they were unable to file their renewal, 

and they were poor and destitute because all of their assets had 

been seized. 

Isn’t there a provision in the law that would have allowed the 

family to be able to renew their trademark in 1974, 1975, 1976 

and, in fact, say that these circumstances prevented it, and that 

circumstances was, in fact, the confiscation of our assets and so on? 

Isn’t it within the power of the Trademark Office? You could have 

made a decision to renew their trademark too, Couldn’t you? 

Ms. DENISON. Are you referring to the trademarks previously 

owned by the Arechabala family? 

Mr. ISSA. Yes. 

Ms. DENISON. They could have claimed excusable non-use. 

Mr. ISSA. So, my last quick point. In 1974, the trademark was 

not codified, right? 

Ms. DENISON. In 1974, the Arechabala family did not have any 

registrations on the U.S. Register. Is that your question? 

Mr. ISSA. No. In 1974, they entered into what had been a latent—never mind. You know what? I’ll wait for additional time. I 

don’t want to take from other Members. The gentlelady from Washington has been patiently waiting. 

Ms. DELBENE. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

And thanks to both of you for being with us today. 

Commissioner Denison, in your testimony, you note that the 

PTO’s decision to accept the authorized fee payment and the most 

recent Havana Club petition in no way decides the Havana Club 

trademark dispute. So I wondered if you could elaborate on why 

this is and comment on the distinct roles that the PTO and the 

courts have in resolving such a dispute. 

Ms. DENISON. Thank you very much. And, by the way, we appreciate your participation in the Trademark Caucus. 

Ms. DELBENE. Thank you. 

Ms. DENISON. So when the Trademark Office is presented with 

documents for renewal, we look at the documents; we do not examine ownership at that point in time because of treaty obligations 

that we have which restrict our ability to examine ownership in the 

post-registration renewal period. And we only look at the ownership if, in fact, there is someone who sends the documents in does 

not match the name in our records. So we don’t have resources to 
33 

investigate the ownership, and people are required to declare under 

penalty of perjury that they own it. 

So what happens is, if there is a dispute, people file cancellations. And so, in fact, that is what has happened here. Bacardi has 

filed a cancellation proceeding, and that is now in Federal court. 

So we are not the ultimate arbiter of ownership. That is where we 

hope the ownership dispute will be resolved, in the Federal court 

case that is now pending between Bacardi and Cubaexport. 

When you get a registration, you just get a presumption of ownership. And then, when it’s challenged in court, that can be rebutted. 

Ms. DELBENE. Thank you. 

Secretary Tong, in your view, has the Administration’s decision 

in any way dictated an outcome in the trademark dispute? 

Mr. TONG. Thank you for your question. 

No. In our view, this trademark dispute will be settled in Federal 

court. 

Ms. DELBENE. And in terms of any intervention that Congress 

might do, what are your concerns about that at this point in time? 

If either of you have concerns. 

Mr. TONG. Well, I’m not sure I have any particular concerns to 

express beyond the fact that—to once again express the really 

strong determination of the Administration to make the protection 

of intellectual property rights and the pursuit of the legitimate 

claims of U.S. nationals who have had their property confiscated by 

Cuba—our, you know, very vigorous pursuit of both of those initiatives going forward. And we believe that, you know, recent circumstances and events have strengthened our capability to do so. 

Ms. DELBENE. Commissioner, do you have any additional comments on that either? 

Ms. DENISON. No. 

Ms. DELBENE. Okay. 

Thank you both for your time. 

And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ISSA. Would the gentlelady yield just to a clarifying question 

you had? 

Ms. DELBENE. Yes, I yield. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. 

When you said U.S. nationals, would those include people only 

at the time of the seizure in 1960, or would it include all of the 

Americans who exist today who fled afterwards and whose assets 

were seized while they were still Cuban nationals? 

Mr. TONG. Yeah, thank you for that question. I think it’s an important point of clarification. 

Our claims talks that began last December are pursuing three 

areas. The first and most important is the claims of some 6,000 

U.S. nationals, the total value of approaching $2 billion, a very significant amount. The second is claims of the U.S. Government. And 

the third—I’m afraid I’ve forgotten right now, but I’m sure it’s also 

very important. 

But the—— 

Mr. ISSA. It could be Cuban nationals who are now Americans. 

Mr. TONG. But the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, Mr. 

Chairman—I think this is an important point—has, under statute, 
34 

only been able to accept the petitions of people who were U.S. nationals at the time of the property being taken. 

Mr. ISSA. So the Bacardi family and all the other families involved who fled Cuba after a dictatorship seized their assets are 

not covered by anything you’re doing today is what you’re saying. 

Mr. TONG. Under the current laws and statutes that we have to 

work with, the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission is—— 

Mr. ISSA. No, no. I apologize. I’m on the gentlelady’s time. But 

the question was are you pursuing on their behalf, not something 

about the claims. You certainly have the right to bring up a whole 

host of families, including, to be honest, the Bacardi family, who 

can’t sell Bacardi rum in Cuba, not just Havana Club and their 

family. 

So the question—I just want to make sure the gentlelady’s question, which you answered, was answered, that, if I understand correctly, no, you are not dealing with those who came to America escaping persecution. We have, you know, a person on the next panel 

that fits that description. That’s why I asked. 

Mr. TONG. So I will take your question and concern back to the 

State Department. I think it’s—my understanding is that, again, 

we are pursuing, first and foremost and at this point exclusively, 

the property of the people who were U.S. nationals at the time of 

confiscation. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. 

Mr. Marino? 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Chairman. 

The question I’m going to ask I would like each of you to respond 

to, if you would, please. 

Has anyone from the Administration, the Obama administration, 

whether it’s the White House, whether it’s State, anyone that you 

work for, anyone you work with, has anyone said to you that this 

issue cannot be part of or get in the way of the reinstating of diplomatic ties between the U.S. and Cuba? 

Secretary? 

Ms. DENISON. No. 

Mr. MARINO. Or Commissioner. Go ahead. 

Ms. DENISON. Sorry I answered first. 

Mr. MARINO. That’s all right. 

Ms. DENISON. The answer’s no. 

Mr. MARINO. No? 

Mr. Secretary? 

Mr. TONG. Again, to my knowledge, in the course of the conversations that the U.S. Government had with the Cuban Government 

about the resumption of diplomatic relations, as far as I’m aware, 

the matter of Havana Club did not come up. 

Mr. MARINO. Do you know if there were any communications 

with anyone else in the White House pursuing this matter within 

any other department or agency in the U.S. Government? 

Mr. TONG. Again, to my knowledge, there was no quid pro quo, 

and this was not a question of negotiation, that the Havana Club 

matter is a matter of U.S. regulatory action and then now, after 

that regulatory action, now it’s a matter before the U.S. courts. 

Mr. MARINO. Commissioner? 

Ms. DENISON. I’m sorry, could you repeat the question? 
35 

Mr. MARINO. Do you know of any communication, if there exists, 

between the White House and any other department or agency concerning the issue with this patent? 

Ms. DENISON. Yes. There were communications from the White 

House to the USPTO staff at some point regarding what the procedure was for the petition. 

Mr. MARINO. And do you know where that communication went 

and what was the intent behind it? 

Ms. DENISON. I don’t know what you mean by where it went 

or—— 

Mr. MARINO. Well, the White House communicates to staff at 

USPTO, right? 

Ms. DENISON. Yes. 

Mr. MARINO. What was their request, or what were their instructions? 

Ms. DENISON. To the best of my knowledge, there were no instructions. It was an inquiry, and we provided information. 

Mr. TONG. Mr. Marino, can I provide a clarification? 

Mr. MARINO. Please. 

Mr. TONG. I don’t want to leave you with the impression that the 

Cuban Government has never raised the Havana Club issue with 

us, because they have raised it with us. 

Mr. MARINO. I’m sure. 

Mr. TONG. But it was—and that won’t surprise any of us. But it 

was not, to my knowledge, a matter of negotiation or of any quid 

pro quo in the discussions with Cuba. 

Mr. MARINO. Now, Mr. Secretary, you said that State is seeking 

claims. For whom is State seeking claims, specifically? 

Mr. TONG. We’re seeking compensation from the Cuban Government. 

Mr. MARINO. For whom? 

Mr. TONG. On behalf of 6,000-odd U.S. nationals who were U.S. 

nationals at the time that their property was confiscated. 

Mr. MARINO. And how is that going? 

Mr. TONG. Well, it just got started, and obviously it’s going to be 

a complex process. I know we were, at the initial meeting, able to 

lay out the full scope of our claims and the rationale behind them 

and have that initial discussion. But we’re asking for compensation, so it will be a—I don’t want to handicap the process for you, 

sir. 

Mr. MARINO. When you say you’re asking for it, is there going 

to be some restrictions concerning Cuba if they do not agree to 

compensate these people? Is there going to be any retaliation from 

the U.S. Government that you know of? 

Mr. TONG. I don’t want to comment on the negotiations per se, 

and perhaps we can follow up and have a—the people that are directly involved in those negotiations could have a conversation with 

your staff—— 

Mr. MARINO. Okay. 

Mr. TONG [continuing]. To explain more about the course and the 

strategy of those negotiations. 

Mr. MARINO. Now, a question for the two of you I have, in 34 seconds: Do you think either State or USPTO or you personally have 

the responsibility of raising the issue with the Administration pur-
36 

suant to the Administration’s move to begin diplomatic ties again 

with Cuba and raise the issue with the White House over this issue 

concerning the patent? 

Ms. DENISON. I did not think I had any obligation to raise it with 

the White House, no. 

Mr. MARINO. You knew of the existing complications in this case? 

People claiming to have ownership and then—— 

Ms. DENISON. I am aware that there are a number of people 

claiming ownership in the Havana Club mark. We have pending 

applications not just from Bacardi. There is also—and I apologize 

if I mispronounce it—the Arechabala family. There is a pending application from them. There was a pending application filed last 

year by somebody named Mr. Solar. I think he abandoned recently. 

But, anyway, there are multiple parties claiming ownership. 

Mr. MARINO. All right. 

My time has expired. Thank you. 

Mr. ISSA. Just to follow up very—just one thing. You did mention 

to the gentleman from Pennsylvania communications with the 

White House. But then, earlier, you said there was no document. 

Is this all oral communication? 

Ms. DENISON. Yes. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. 

Ms. DENISON. To the best of my knowledge. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. Can you be provide us memos and any other information that may exist related to the—you know, in your business, everyone does a memo for the record. Could we have any of 

that that exists so we could understand the context? 

Ms. DENISON. Yes, Mr. Chairman, if it exists. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. 

We now go to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Jeffries. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you. 

And I thank the witnesses for their presence here today. 

Commissioner Denison, I want to go over some issues related to 

the excusable non-use doctrine, some of which you may have already covered, and then build upon that to the extent time permits. 

Just so that I’m clear, to obtain and maintain a trademark registration, the mark owner has to show use. Is that correct? 

Ms. DENISON. In order to get a registration to begin with, most 

people have to show use in commerce. There are certain exceptions, 

though, to honor our treaty obligations. And so, in those cases, 

those people would not have to show use in commerce to obtain a 

registration. 

However, everyone has to show use in commerce, as a general 

rule, between the fifth and sixth year of the registration date. The 

exception is if you can prove excusable non-use, which is provided 

for in the statute. And we did talk about it a bit earlier. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Now, let me ask about that. In the case of excusable non-use, am I correct that it’s a temporary doctrine in its application? 

Ms. DENISON. There’s no restriction on it in the statute. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. Now, under U.S. trademark law, non-use of 

a trademark for 3 consecutive years, as I understand it, creates a 

rebuttable presumption of non-use. Is that right? 
37 

Ms. DENISON. That’s a different concept. That is rebuttable presumption of abandonment. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Right. But that relates to non-use, correct? 

Ms. DENISON. It does. It’s sort of a complicated legal interpretation, though. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. And it’s 3 years, which is what creates the 

rebuttable presumption, true? 

Ms. DENISON. Yes. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. 

Now, how does that legal concept work in the context of a trademark that’s been registered since 1976 but has never actually been 

used in the context of U.S. commerce? 

Ms. DENISON. Well, the excusable non-use part of the statute— 

I’m going to have to ask my legal team for an opinion on this, but 

I think that the excusable non-use can trump any claim of abandonment. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. I’d be interested—— 

Ms. DENISON. I can get back to you on that, though. I’d like to 

consult. 

Mr. JEFFRIES [continuing]. In some clarification. 

Ms. DENISON. That’s a complicated legal question you asked me. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. No, thank you. Well, I should thank my 

staff for that complicated legal question, actually. 

Let me—— 

Mr. ISSA. It was a good one. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Let me explore a different concept. Now, it’s my 

understanding that there’s a principle under law which I guess 

technically is referred to as geographically deceptively 

misdescriptive goods. Is that correct? It’s kind of an awkward 

phrase, but that’s the concept, correct? 

Ms. DENISON. Yes, there is such a concept. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Now, in terms of that concept, could you just 

elaborate on—I believe there are four factors connected to that 

principle in the statute, one of which—I think the one that grabs 

my attention is—or the two that grab my attention are: one, the 

primary significance of the mark is geographic; and, two, purchasers would likely believe that the goods or services originated 

in the place named in the mark. 

Is that correct, in terms of two of the factors, two of the four factors connected to this principle? 

Ms. DENISON. That sounds right. I don’t have the statute in front 

of me, but that sounds generally correct. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. I’d be interested, you know, sort of, in your opinion, as it relates to the Havana Club mark—and this was an issue 

that some of us explored when we were in Europe as the Judiciary 

Committee related to the concept of champagne in France and understanding what’s the difference between champagne and sparkling wine. 

In the context of the Havana Club mark, is it your understanding—I believe it’s correct—that the Havana Club rum was actually made in either Puerto Rico or the Bahamas. Is that right? 

Ms. DENISON. Excuse me. Whose Havana Club are you—— 

Mr. JEFFRIES. The Bacardi rum. 

Ms. DENISON. My understanding is it is not made in Cuba. 
38 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Correct, that it was made in Puerto Rico or the 

Bahamas. And—— 

Ms. DENISON. I honestly don’t know where it’s made. I think it 

may have been made in Puerto Rico, but I did not know it was 

made in the Bahamas. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. Right. We might be able to clarify that if 

time permits with the second panel. But what I’d be interested 

in—— 

Mr. ISSA. The gentleman, for the record, it says ‘‘San Juan, Puerto Rico’’ on the bottle. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. 

Mr. ISSA. The bottle’s open if you want to inspect. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. It’s tempting. 

And so my time has expired, but if the Chair would permit, I’d 

be interested in your thoughts on the—your views as it relates to 

this particular concept of geographic deception as it relates to a 

Havana-related mark put onto the market by Bacardi with the rum 

actually being made in San Juan, Puerto Rico. 

Ms. DENISON. Thank you for your question. 

I believe that when we were examining the Bacardi application 

many years ago that that was raised as an issue in the Bacardi application, the fact that it could possibly be geographically 

misdescriptive, deceptively misdescriptive, if the rum was not, in 

fact, being made in Havana. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And, as far as you know, that’s an open legal question? 

Ms. DENISON. Well, the application is still pending. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. 

We now go to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Poe, for his round 

of questioning. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think you cut my mike off. 

Maybe you did that on purpose. 

Mr. ISSA. Well, mine is working, but I really didn’t touch yours. 

See if maybe the—try the next one down. We haven’t done anything. 

Ron, does your work? 

Mr. DESANTIS. Yep. 

Mr. ISSA. It’s just you, Ted. 

Mr. POE. I’m sure it is. It always is. 

This issue—as maybe some of you know, I used to be a judge. 

And the more I hear about this specific case, the more I’m glad 

that I tried criminal cases, you know, bank robberies, kidnappings, 

murder cases. 

Be that as it may, let me see if I can look at this from a bigpicture situation. Cubaexport is the Cuban Government. Is that 

correct? 

Ms. DENISON. Yes. 

Mr. POE. And it’s really the military portion of the Cuban Government that runs a company. And if you want to export something 

out of Cuba, you work through Cubaexport, which is a government 

military-run corporation that sometimes partners with other people 
39 

throughout the world, like the French in this particular case, to sell 

a product abroad. Is that a fair statement? 

Ms. DENISON. I’m not prepared to opine on Cubaexport. 

Mr. POE. Well, this whole thing is about Cubaexport. You don’t 

know anything about Cubaexport? 

Neither one of you know anything about Cubaexport? 

This isn’t a gotcha question. I’m just trying to lay the foundation 

of who the people are we’re talking about in this case. 

Mr. TONG. Yeah. Thank you, sir. 

Cubaexport is a state-owned corporation. So it is owned and 

managed by the Cuban Government. 

Mr. POE. Cuban Government, primarily the military. 

So what happened? When the revolution happened, the Cuban 

Government swoops in and steals property from Cuban nationals 

and foreign nationals, foreign corporations, and nationalizes the 

property, makes it theirs. Then they set up another corporation, 

called Cubaexport, to run these companies like Bacardi and sell 

stuff abroad. They partnered with the French in this particular 

case. 

And this dispute is whether or not the United States, the trademark, and they should still be allowed to sell or not sell and whether Bacardi and Puerto Rico can sell or not sell. I mean, is that a 

generally rough statement of what’s going on in this particular 

case? 

Mr. TONG. I mean—— 

Mr. POE. Or not? 

Mr. TONG. The case is certainly a matter—the trademark dispute 

is definitely one between—and you’ll be hearing from them in your 

next panel, I believe—Cubaexport, which is a state-owned Cuban 

corporation, and Bacardi, which is not. 

Mr. POE. Okay. 

And so we’re in a position where Congress is considering under 

legislation to weigh in on this particular case, and we make a verdict, we’ll make a verdict based upon the legislation filed by the 

Chairman, or we let it play out in the judicial system, in the 

courts, the Federal courts, where this particular case is now. 

I mean, is that right? The case is in Federal court? 

Mr. TONG. The case certainly is in Federal court. 

And, sir, if I can make one observation on that, as someone who 

is charged with the promotion of intellectual property rights overseas, it’s a matter of pride in explaining the strength of the United 

States intellectual property rights system that we do have a court 

system that operates well and considers the merits of each case in 

a proper fashion. 

Mr. POE. All right. 

Mr. TONG. And I must say that I’m confident that our court system will provide the most high-quality judgment in this case compared to those of any other country. 

Mr. POE. And I generally have the belief and feeling that if something is in the court system the court system ought to settle the 

issue, and Congress should really stay out of it, as a general rule. 

I’m not talking about this particular case. 

But we are dealing with the Cuban Government now and trying 

to open it up and be more—let’s see—have a better relationship 
40 

with Cuba nationally. And my concern is similar to one that Mr. 

Marino, who used to be a Federal prosecutor, said. We’re dealing 

with Cuba, and my belief is we do a lousy job when it comes to 

dealing with someone that’s an adversary. The Iranian deal is a 

perfect example, in my opinion. I think that was a bad deal for the 

United States. 

Now we’re dealing with Cuba. Are we dealing with them through 

strength or through weakness in our political dealings with Cuba? 

Of the 6,000 claims—you know, the Cubans, they don’t take back 

convicted criminals that are ordered deported back to their country. 

They don’t take them back. You know, China doesn’t take them 

back either. And it’s very difficult to deal with the Cuban Government on a level playing field. 

So are we giving up our strength in dealing with Cuba diplomatically over these claims, over this case, over the other cases that include Americans, that don’t include Americans, that include Cubans, in your opinion? Or are we fighting for, you know, what we 

want to be fair in the outcome of our relationship with Cuba and 

what they have done in the past to steal everybody’s property? 

Mr. TONG. I think you’ve raised an important matter here, sir. 

And, yes, the U.S. Government is pursuing the claims of U.S. nationals against the Cuban Government with great vigor and, we believe, in an intelligent fashion, which is by creating an environment 

where we can actually engage with the Cuban Government and 

seek resolution of those claims across the table, presenting our case 

clearly and scientifically to the Cuban side. 

And I must say that, in the estimation of the Administration, the 

fact that we have faith in the fairness of our own court system to 

adjudicate this trademark dispute actually adds to our legitimacy 

and strength in pursuing that conversation with Cuba. We don’t 

agree with Cuba on everything, by any means, but a demonstration 

of confidence in our democratic system adds to our strength in pursuing these claims. 

Mr. POE. I would agree with your comment about our judicial 

system. It is the absolute best in the world. 

But I yield back to the Chairman. 

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Poe, where would you put the Cuban judicial system in that hierarchy of best to worst? 

Mr. POE. Well, first of all, it’s a misnomer. It’s not a Cuban judicial system; it’s just a system. So it’s not much of a justice system, 

but it’s just a system. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. 

And, with that, we go to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. 

DeSantis. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Tong, you were talking about trying to create conditions to 

get results here, but the President’s policy change was announced, 

I believe, in December of 2014. So, since that point, how many certified claims have been paid by the Cuban Government to U.S. citizens? 

Mr. TONG. None yet, sir. 

Mr. DESANTIS. That’s what I thought. 

And when you have discussed the issue—I think in your testimony you said that they have been provided an overview of nearly 
41 

6,000 certified claims—how did the Cuban Government officials respond to that? 

Mr. TONG. I was not a participant to those negotiations, so I 

don’t think—— 

Mr. DESANTIS. Do you know if any commitments were made? 

Mr. TONG. They listened to the presentation of the U.S. claims, 

and we’re beginning a complex process of pursuing them with great 

vigor. 

Mr. DESANTIS. So that’s a way to say ‘‘no,’’ I think, that there 

were no commitments made, correct? 

Mr. TONG. We’re still just getting started in this conversation. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Well, I get that. I just think that when you’re 

dealing with a regime of this nature, from their perspective, they’ve 

received all these concessions, I mean, a lot of cash they’re going 

to end up getting, and they really haven’t done anything for us. 

And I think that they’re just gonna keep doing this and try to pocket concessions. So I think that this has been a mistake in approach. 

Now, let me ask you this, Commissioner. As a general matter, 

seized trademarks, should those be registered to those who seized 

them or to their rightful owners? 

Ms. DENISON. The situation with Havana Club is that we registered it because they were permitted to pay under the—— 

Mr. DESANTIS. I understand. But I’m just saying, as a general 

matter, when you have a trademark that’s seized, is it better that 

the person who seized it is recognized or is it better that the person 

who originated it is recognized? Will it be better policy? 

Ms. DENISON. It’s not my job to opine on the law that you have 

put into place. Congress has put into place section 211. So if there 

were another situation and another special license were issued, I 

would be in a situation where I had to take the money. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Well, I’m glad you mentioned 211. What type of 

legal analysis, if any, did the Patent and Trademark Office undertake before departing from the precedent, the longstanding precedent, following the language of 211 with respect to this issue? 

Ms. DENISON. I think it’s important for you to understand that 

section 211 is administered by OFAC. And so, once we received the 

specific license—we were not involved with the OFAC decision to 

issue a specific license. But once we received the specific license, 

the law had been complied with, and we didn’t have an option, we 

had to issue the renewal. 

Mr. DESANTIS. So you did not do any separate legal analysis for 

that reason. Is that what you’re saying? 

Ms. DENISON. Correct. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Okay. 

Well, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you calling this hearing. I 

think it’s something that’s very frustrating to see, you know, the 

Cuban Government seizing all this property. This has been going 

on for decades. And it seems like they’re going to get away with 

a lot of this stuff, and, you know, I think that’s a real tragedy. But 

I know we have the next panel coming up, and so I will yield back. 

Mr. ISSA. Will the gentleman yield for just 1 second? 

Mr. DESANTIS. For 1 second. 

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Secretary, did you do a legal analysis? They asked 

the Commissioner, but since you folks—you and OFAC—was there 
42 

a legal analysis done by State, who effectively made this happen 

while tying the hands of the PTO? Ms. Denison has made it clear 

she had no choice. You had a choice. What was your legal analysis 

for it? 

Mr. TONG. We also followed the guidance of OFAC in the interpretation of—— 

Mr. ISSA. So I need to get OFAC here to find out if they did a 

legal analysis? 

Mr. TONG. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. Well, I guess that’s what the empty chair is for. 

Thank you, Mr. DeSantis. 

We now go to Mr. Deutch, another gentleman from Florida. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I apologize. I had another meeting. But I’d just like to walk 

through a couple of points. 

Secretary Tong, as the Administration moves toward normalization, there’s been broad recognition, widely discussed, that confiscated and disputed property claims have to be resolved, and I absolutely agree with that. 

What I am confused about is, how was it that we decided before 

any of the many claims, many claims that are out there that have 

been the focus of much discussion, before any of those claims are 

resolved, that we would toss aside this heavily disputed trademark? Why was Havana Club marked first on the list? 

Mr. TONG. Our handling of the Havana Club registration—the 

State Department’s role, to be very specific, was to provide foreign 

policy guidance to OFAC in its decision about whether to grant a 

specific license that provided Cubaexport the ability to pay a fee, 

which would allow them to register a trademark. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Right. 

Mr. TONG. It—— 

Mr. DEUTCH. And you had said—I’m sorry. But you had said earlier, or you said in your testimony that—specifically, you’d said 

that State’s role was not to adjudicate the ownership of the disputed trademark rights and the Department took no position on 

that issue. 

Mr. TONG. Correct. 

Mr. DEUTCH. But how is it that granting of an OFAC license is 

not taking a position on the issue? 

And here’s the question. Here’s why I rushed back here as quickly as I could. Shouldn’t we clearly bar the recognition of any sort 

if the mark was used—if the mark that’s used was used in connection with a confiscated business and the original owner hasn’t consented? And aren’t we just legitimizing the confiscation and then 

telling the original owners to take their objections to court? 

And I hope that it’s not going to be a broader reversal of what 

has been U.S. policy, to not recognize any interest in confiscated 

property. And I also hope that it’s not a foreshadowing of the process that might be used in future Cuban confiscated property claims 

resolution. 

Mr. TONG. So there was a lot in what you said. 

Mr. DEUTCH. There was. I realize that. 

Mr. TONG. Our action, the State Department action, again, was 

to issue foreign policy guidance that then informed the decision to 
43 

allow a trademark registration. That trademark registration is now 

a matter of dispute in U.S. Federal court. 

So the U.S. administration action, in particular the State Department action, in this regard, as I said, was not to adjudicate this 

claim, but, rather, it creates a situation where it will be adjudicated—— 

Mr. DEUTCH. Right, but—— 

Mr. TONG. If I could—— 

Mr. DEUTCH. No, but I just want to follow up on that point. But 

that gets to the question I asked. Isn’t that just essentially legitimizing the confiscation and then telling the original owners just 

simply take your case to court? 

Mr. TONG. Well, in the question of broader claims of U.S. nationals against the Cuban Government, I’ve stated several times this 

evening that we are pursuing those with great vigor and, we believe, with an astute strategy, sitting down directly with the Cuban 

Government to address these claims of 6,000 people, worth close to 

$2 billion. And we will pursue those claims with great energy and 

vigor and determination. 

That is a separate matter in a different channel and an entirely 

different matter than the question of a trademark registration for 

a disputed trademark. 

Mr. DEUTCH. But how is the—ultimately, we’re talking about 

these claims, and, in all cases, we’re talking about the confiscation 

of property, right? So, I mean, in those cases where we’re talking 

about the confiscation of property, why is it different in this case 

with the confiscation of a trademark versus the others? 

Mr. TONG. One of the differences in this case—and there are several in terms of the type of matter to be decided, again, not by the 

State Department. But one of the difference is that, in this case, 

the property which was confiscated that this trademark is associated with was that held by a U.S national at the time of confiscation. So, under the law that we’re operating under, it doesn’t become a matter for us to be pursuing through the claims discussions. So that is one of the differences. 

I just would encourage Members of Congress to consider the 

broader game here, which is the pursuit of the claims of U.S. nationals, worth in the billions of dollars, against a government that 

will not necessarily go easily into recognizing these claims. So we 

are going to go after those with great energy, and we should. 

Mr. DEUTCH. I do—and my time is up, but I do—I appreciate the 

suggestion and your urging that I consider those. I consider those 

very seriously. That’s why I am concerned about the possible precedential value—the possible precedent that’s being set in the way 

this claim was handled, almost with the appearance that this one 

will cast aside to perhaps give us some greater leverage as we discuss these others. That’s my concern. 

But I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. 

And I’ll be brief, because I know we have a second panel. 

One, isn’t the $2 billion the original value? Isn’t it $7 billion or 

$8 billion? Isn’t there interest—— 

Mr. TONG. On the—— 
44 

Mr. ISSA. You may not be claiming it, but the value of money 

over a lifetime plus. 

Mr. TONG. I’m not certain of the facts of that to answer—— 

Mr. ISSA. Well, aren’t the 6,000 claims—— 

Mr. TONG [continuing]. Question. We’ll get back to you on that. 

Mr. ISSA. The 6,000 claims were about $2 billion at the time that 

they were certified. So we’re going to assume that they’re a multiple of that at some point. 

But let me just—I have to, to be honest, call you out on something that I’m—I’m concerned, the way you said it. You said ‘‘the 

broader game.’’ 

Now, this country welcomed tens of thousands of Cuban refugees 

to our shores. Those tens of thousands of Cuban refugees, including 

those who spent time in prisons and fled, those who died—some of 

them died on the boats, and some made it here. Those Americans, 

you’ve said repeatedly, are not part of your calculation. Isn’t that 

true? 

And, please, don’t tell me about international law. I just want 

the straight answer. 

Those tens of thousands of Cubans who fled to our shores, who 

we granted asylum and citizenship from a totalitarian dictatorship 

that oppressed them, that had no rule of law, they are not part of 

the current negotiations that you are trying to work with the Cubans. And yet you used the word ‘‘broader game.’’ 

Isn’t that the broader game? Isn’t the broader game justice for 

the tens of thousands here and the hundreds of thousands still in 

Cuba, that they get their rights? Isn’t that the broader game for 

America? 

Mr. TONG. Well, Mr. Chairman, as I’ve stated previously, the 

Foreign Claims Settlement Commission has recognized the claims 

of people who were U.S. nationals at the time of confiscation, and 

we’re pursuing those claims vigorously through the negotiations. 

Mr. ISSA. Well, doesn’t your responsibility, your position, Secretary, include taking steps to eliminate trafficking in stolen U.S. 

property? 

Mr. TONG. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ISSA. So U.S. property is sitting there, perhaps a home 

that—a U.S. citizen in 1960, and certainly homes and businesses 

of U.S. citizens today. That’s where rum is being produced. It’s 

where Coca-Cola copy is being produced. It’s where cigars are being 

produced. 

So anything that we allow to come, including Havana Club rum, 

very, very possibly is coming from assets seized illegally, held by 

Americans. And your responsibility is to see that that doesn’t get 

trafficked, isn’t it? 

Mr. TONG. Our responsibility is to uphold and implement U.S. 

law on all these matters. 

Mr. ISSA. So, again, I’ll go to the Commissioner. 

And, please, this is within your jurisdiction. And I would ask 

that you use the level of career professionalism and not tell me 

that somebody I haven’t yet brought before this Committee is the 

person to ask. 

We talked earlier, and the round of questioning was rather interesting. The first question: There’s abandonment, and then there’s 
45 

an inability to ship the goods, to in fact use your trademark, correct? Okay. 

The original trademark holder, who’s one of the still applicants, 

that family, their assets—and they’re American citizens today— 

their assets were seized in Cuba. Their product, if their assets were 

lawfully returned to them, could be made in Cuba and shipped 

from Cuba, couldn’t it? 

Well, I won’t ask you to hypothecate that. 

Ms. DENISON. I can’t. 

Mr. ISSA. Right. But the fact is they have a factory, or had a factory, in Cuba. If they didn’t have to flee as refugees recognized by 

us, for asylum recognized by us, after a totalitarian dictatorship 

jailed them unlawfully, oppressed them, if they hadn’t fled here, 

they could still be there. If they could be there, then they could 

ship from Cuba. 

So in the question about Havana Club and origin, once Cuba returns to rule of law, once it returns to where the family can regain 

what was taken by it in no different matter than the Nazis took 

things—this government nationalized. They took assets. They gave 

no compensation. So the fact is Havana Club has a factory in Cuba, 

except it belongs to someone who is an American citizen. 

So is there, within your recognition, a circumstance in which— 

as long as a military junta holds on to the asset that makes the 

alcohol, that family is unable to secure the money for their trademark or to ship from their native country of Cuba because their 

factory is being held by a military dictatorship. Isn’t that every bit 

as valid a reason for the family not to be able to ship product and, 

thus, reclaim their trademark? 

You know, the Cubans say we can’t ship—the Cuban Government says we can’t ship because we have an embargo. But this 

family can’t ship because the Cuban Government took their factory, 

their distillery, and still holds it today. 

Ms. DENISON. I believe I stated earlier that they could have preserved their registrations by claiming excusable non-use back in 

the fifties. 

Mr. ISSA. But you have the right to waive any limit to go back 

and find those circumstances. You don’t have—you mentioned you 

didn’t have time limits. If the family came to you today and said, 

we want to reclaim it because we have been unable to ship from 

our country of Cuba, from our factory, because a dictatorship has 

taken it and seized it, you have the ability to grant that today. 

There’s no time limit on that, is there? 

Ms. DENISON. I don’t have the ability to do that today because 

there is a blocking registration. 

Mr. ISSA. Oh. Oh, that’s right, because you were ordered by the 

State Department to grant a registration to the Cuban Government 

that seized their asset. 

Ms. DENISON. I was not—— 

Mr. ISSA. The same State Department that’s not going to protect 

the rights of those refugees and asylumees and their families, the 

tens and thousands of Cuban Americans who fled Cuba or were imprisoned and then got out of Cuba on a boat. They won’t protect 

them. And you’ve granted a trademark to the Cuban Government 
46 

that did that, and that’s going to block it today? Is that your testimony? 

Ms. DENISON. I was not ordered by the State Department to do 

anything. 

Mr. ISSA. Well, you provided the legal information necessary to 

compel you to give it. Because you said you had no choice once 

OFAC delivered that. 

Ms. DENISON. The Department of Treasury—— 

Mr. ISSA. I’m sorry, Treasury. 

Ms. DENISON [continuing]. Is where OFAC is. 

Mr. ISSA. Treasury. 

Ms. DENISON. Yes. So once the OFAC—— 

Mr. ISSA. I apologize for saying OFAC. Treasury. Thank you. 

Ms. DENISON. Once—— 

Mr. ISSA. The problem is we have State here telling us that this 

is the bigger game that we need to understand. 

Ms. DENISON. I understand that. I’m just a very small part of it, 

and I got a license from OFAC, and so then I followed the law. 

Mr. ISSA. Right. You had no choice but to provide a trademark 

to a dictatorship that seized their assets and that now blocks the 

original owners, who had it seized from them, and whose children 

and grandchildren are fairly destitute today comparatively because, 

of course, they don’t have the assets to make their distilled spirits. 

Ms. DENISON. Is there a question? 

Mr. ISSA. Well, ‘‘yes’’ would be fine. 

Ms. DENISON. I had no choice but to renew registration number 

1031651. 

Mr. ISSA. Well, thank you. 

I think, although the record is not complete, it is certainly complete as to what the broader game is by the State Department and 

the fact that you had no choice but to grant an injustice by renewing to a dictatorship that seized some of these assets their trademark, which will now, I predict, be used in Federal court for the 

presumption in favor of Cuba. 

And that is what you have done here today, or have done. You 

have changed the presumption in the court. I will tell you, your 

testimony, Mr. Tong, that you don’t think it’s going to change the 

presumption, I don’t think you’re right. I think it will change the 

presumption. It shouldn’t. And certainly I hope Congress passes a 

resolution hoping that the courts will recognize that your actions 

should in no way change the presumption of who has the actual 

right and who has had the right to that trademark since the 

1930’s. 

Ms. DENISON. Mr. Chairman, the presumption has been in place 

since 1976. So we have maintained the status quo. 

Mr. ISSA. I hear you. But no one was shipping any product; 

today, this product is being sold in at least 19 states. And notwithstanding the renewal—there’s certainly 19 states’ worth of common 

law rights, rights that in the ordinary course would not be stopped. 

And I would presume that the Cuban Government will seek to stop 

Bacardi in court. They will try to stop the sale of this even while 

they cannot sell the product. 

We’ll see how it works out. The one thing I know is the lawyers 

will get rich, the Administration will move on, and the thousands 
47 

and thousands of Americans whose parents and grandparents fled 

Cuba will feel undercut if you’re only looking at 6,000 people who 

may have lost a stock or a bond but were Americans sitting here. 

And I hope this Administration will reconsider the broader game 

and understand that the broader game includes all Americans, not 

just those who were Americans in 1960. 

If you have any closing comments, I certainly want to hear them. 

And, with that, this panel is dismissed, and we’ll take a 5-minute 

recess while we set up the next panel. 

Ms. DENISON. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. ISSA. I want to welcome all of you back. 

And I take pleasure in introducing our second distinguished 

panel of witnesses. Once again, the witnesses’ written statements 

will be entered into the record in their entirety. 

And I would ask that you summarize your testimony in 5 minutes or less. To help us stay within the time, you see the lights. 

You know how the lights work. I will say no more. 

Before I introduce the witnesses, pursuant to the Committee’s 

rule, I would ask you all to please rise to take the oath and raise 

your right hand. 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you’re about 

to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 

truth? 

Please be seated. 

Let the record indicate that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

Our second panel of witnesses today includes Mr. Rick Wilson, 

senior vice president at Bacardi-Martini, Incorporated; Mr. William 

Reinsch, president of the National Foreign Trade Council; Mr. 

Mauricio Tamargo, attorney at law of Tamargo LLP and former 

chairman of the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, which certainly was talked about by the previous panel; and Ms. Escasena, 

a Cuban property claimant from Miami, Florida. 

And, just for the record, are you one of the 6,000 that is in that 

stack that was referenced earlier? 

Ms. ESCASENA. No, I’m not. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. So you are a claimant but not certified. You lost 

property but are not recognized. I just want to make that for the 

record. 

And, with that, I will go down the list, starting with Mr. Wilson. 

TESTIMONY OF RICK WILSON, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, 

BACARDI-MARTINI, INC. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Committee Members. 

Good afternoon—or good evening, I guess. My name is Rick Wilson, 

and I’m senior vice president of external affairs for Bacardi. 

I’m here today to testify about the recent decisions of OFAC and 

the PTO, which issued a license and a trademark registration for 

the illegally obtained and now-expired Havana Club mark 10 years 

after the statutory deadline. These decisions are unprecedented 

and shocking because they undo decades of U.S. law and policy by 

sanctioning Cuba’s efforts to capitalize on and traffic in stolen assets. 
48 

This dispute has a long history, and I will not go through all the 

facts, and I ask the Committee to look at my written comments. 

I do have to say a few words a little bit about history. You know, 

the Bacardi and the Arechabala families were both very similar 

companies. They originated in Cuba in the mid-1800’s. We both 

created rums and operated in a similar fashion until 1960, when 

armed forces of the Cuban Government, under the leadership of 

Fidel Castro, forcibly seized the company’s assets in Cuba without 

compensation, throwing family members in jail or forcing them to 

flee the country. 

And I just have an example. And we have the original, by the 

way, in our office. This is actually the front page of the newspaper 

that talks about the confiscations. And on the last page, actually, 

is the list, which have been circled, of the Arechabala company and 

the Bacardi company, in case there’s any doubts. 

Unlike the Arechabala family, the Bacardi had assets outside of 

Cuba and successfully stopped Cuba from selling rum under the 

Bacardi name around the world. We had to fight them in a number 

of places. Unfortunately, the Arechabalas did not have those assets 

outside of Cuba and were unable to continue their business. 

After losing the fight for the Bacardi brand, the Cuban Government, they lied in wait. And in 1976, you heard earlier, after the 

family’s U.S. trademark registration understandably lapsed, Cuba 

fraudulently registered the mark for itself. 

Years later, then it sought an OFAC license, by the way, to 

transfer that illegally obtained registration to that joint-venture 

company you heard about earlier half-owned by Pernod Ricard, a 

French liquor company that today is the second-largest spirit company in the world. OFAC, back then, properly denied that request. 

However, the Cuban Government would be faced in 2006 with 

another need to renew its illegally obtained registration. But, this 

time, a very important law had been passed by Congress, called 

section 211, which specifically requires confiscators and their successors to seek a specific license to obtain or renew a trademark 

registration for Cuban confiscated trademarks. 

Cuba applied for such special license, and OFAC refused to grant 

it back then, stating, and I quote, ‘‘We have received guidance from 

the State Department informing us that it would be inconsistent 

with U.S. policy to issue a specific license authorizing transactions 

related to the renewal of the Havana Club trademark.’’ And indeed 

it was, and indeed it still should be. 

As a result of OFAC denying this license application, the PTO 

denied the trademark renewal, stating that the registration will be 

canceled expired. Again, this, as was stated earlier, 2012, all the 

litigation regarding that ended. 

The Cuban Government sued the U.S. Government during this 

timeframe, and OFAC specifically defended its decision to deny the 

license application all the way to the Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case. 

That should have been the end to the matter. However, in unprecedented fashion and for unknown reasons, the PTO refused to 

remove the canceled mark from its register for years. And, recently, 

on January 11, 2016, OFAC unbelievably reversed course and 
49 

granted Cuba a license which purports to authorize payment of this 

long-overdue filing fee from 2006. 

So, within 24 hours of learning about this decision, a speed 

which is likely unmatched in the chronicles of administrative law, 

the PTO granted Cuba’s 2006 petition to renew its trademark. 

Granting a specific license to renew Cuba’s invalid registration allows the Cuban Government to illegally maintain its claim of title 

to United States property which is acquired through the forcible 

confiscation of the Arechabalas’ assets and forced exile of its founders. Indeed, intellectual property law is undermined, not strengthened, when states recognize rights in confiscated marks. 

Whether the Cuban embargo is strengthened or weakened, it will 

always be important to ensure that the United States does not become a party to Cuba’s illegal confiscation of private property. Recognizing Cuba’s ownership of the U.S. Havana Club registration, as 

OFAC and PTO have now done, will only serve to legitimize Cuba’s 

thievery. 

What occurred was a forcible confiscation at gunpoint. For decades, the U.S. has prevented Cuba and its business partners from 

profiting off of the United States Havana Club registration. It 

should continue to do so. 

Well-settled U.S. law and policy, as reaffirmed by section 211, 

ensures that the U.S. will always protect the creators and owners 

of intellectual property, like us, and not reward those rogue states, 

like Cuba, which use force of arms to steal such property and enrich itself at the expense of its citizens. The sudden and unexplained decision of OFAC and the PTO to permit Cuba’s renewal 

of the Havana Club mark flies in the face of these legal and policy 

principles, and this action should be retroactively revoked. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson follows:] 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. 

Mr. Reinsch. 

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM A. REINSCH, PRESIDENT, 

NATIONAL FOREIGN TRADE COUNCIL 

Mr. REINSCH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

My name is Bill Reinsch. I’m the president of the National Foreign Trade Council, which represents 200 American companies engaged in global commerce. 

The NFTC strongly supports the Obama administration’s efforts 

to place relations between the United States and Cuba on a more 

normal footing. Resolving satisfactorily the legitimate claims of 

U.S. citizens who had their property in Cuba confiscated by the 

Castro government is essential to creating the conditions in which 

a normal relationship with Cuba can thrive and endure. Constructing new impediments and perpetuating those that already 

exist will only complicate this process and make it more difficult 

to secure the recompense that U.S. property holders have sought 

for decades. 

Tonight, I want to focus my testimony on an important intellectual property issue that, if not resolved correctly, will adversely affect our country’s standing in international organizations, our ability to lead the global effort to protect intellectual property rights, 

and our efforts to protect the property of U.S. citizens and companies doing business in Cuba in the years ahead. And that is section 

211. 

As the Committee is aware from its hearing on this subject in 

March 2010, where I also had the honor of appearing, section 211 

was found in 2002 to be in violation of U.S. WTO obligations. Some 

14 years later, the United States remains in noncompliance. Section 211 also has put the United States in violation of its obligations under the General Inter-American Convention for Trade 

Mark and Commercial Protection. 

On behalf of the NFTC, I want to express our support for repeal 

of section 211, which is contained in—a provision for which is contained in a number of different bills, which I enumerate in my 

statement. 

I also want to express my opposition, I’m sorry to say, Mr. Chairman, to your bill, H.R. 1627, which purports to address this problem in a different way but, in fact, would only exacerbate it. 

Repeal of section 211 would remedy the U.S. breach of its WTO 

obligations and the Inter-American Convention—and my written 

statement provides details about that—while it would also remove 

any pretext for the Cuban Government to remove protection of 

trademarks currently registered in Cuba by U.S. companies. 

At present, there are more than 5,000 U.S. trademarks registered in Cuba by over 400 U.S. companies. Many of these companies look forward to the opportunity to sell their products in Cuba, 

and they will want to know with certainty that their trademarks 

will be protected by Cuba as they build their plans to develop that 

market. 

Repeal of section 211 also would restore the traditional U.S. leadership role on intellectual property issues which has been compromised by our failure to comply with the WTO ruling. This has 
56 

provided over the past decade a convenient excuse for other WTO 

member countries, such as China and India, to ignore U.S. calls to 

improve their IP laws. 

Repeal of section 211 would confirm the U.S. commitment to providing high standards of IP protection, including our commitment 

not to assign trademarks based on political criteria. It would also 

reaffirm that resolving trademark disputes are properly the responsibility of the Patent and Trademark Office and the courts based 

on the merits and not on political considerations. 

Section 211 has no benefits for the U.S. business community and 

is far more likely to cause significant damage. If it’s maintained in 

law, it could provide, as I said, a pretext for Cuba to withdraw protection for U.S. trademarks currently registered in Cuba by American companies. It could also become one more roadblock to the efforts of the United States to reach agreement with the Cuban Government on a satisfactory resolution of the outstanding claims that 

will be the topic of the next two witnesses. 

H.R. 1627, another proposal short of full repeal, we believe, will 

make things worse. For the benefit of a single company, the proponents of section 211 and H.R. 1627, in effect, are asking the Congress, one, to make it more difficult for U.S. companies to enforce 

their trademarks and tradenames in U.S. courts against claims of 

ownership; two, to keep U.S. companies exposed to the risk of retaliation abroad and the type of injury that they suffered in South Africa in a comparable situation; and, three, to continue putting U.S. 

law at cross-purposes with longstanding principles of U.S. trademark law and important IP and trade policy objectives of the U.S. 

business community and the U.S. Government. And my written 

statement has further details on those points, as well. 

H.R. 1627 would seek to apply section 211 to both U.S. nationals 

and foreign trademark holders. However, such an amendment has 

significant drawbacks when compared with repeal, the main one 

being that it would not address any of the inconsistencies of 211 

with the Inter-American Convention. In addition to the risk to U.S. 

companies abroad, such a partial approach would also lead to increased litigation and legal uncertainty at home. 

In sum, section 211, even if amended by H.R. 1627, would continue to benefit only a single company and provide no benefits for 

U.S. business. Instead, it would make it more difficult for U.S. companies to enforce their trademarks and tradenames in U.S. courts 

against counterfeiters and infringers and keep U.S. companies exposed to the risk of legal uncertainty and retaliation abroad. For 

NFTC members, this is a bad bargain that harms both U.S. business and U.S. national interests. 

Instead, we urge Congress to repeal section 211 in its entirety. 

Repeal is the only action that will provide full compliance with all 

current U.S. trade obligations and deny other governments any rationale for suspending their treaty obligations or retaliating against 

the trademark and tradename rights of U.S. businesses. This is all 

the more important as the United States moves to reestablish a 

normalized relationship with Cuba. Repeal of section 211, we believe, is an essential element of establishing that relationship. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate what Secretary Tong 

and Ms. Denison said, and that is to note that repeal would not 
57 

take sides in the underlying dispute over the Havana Club trademark and it would not settle that question. Rather, it would return 

that dispute to the Patent and Trademark Office and the courts, 

where we believe it belongs. Experience shows that the courts are 

more than capable of reaching a just and equitable resolution of 

that dispute based on the merits. 

Thank you for the opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Reinsch follows:] 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. And just, as we go on, you do also—one of 

the 200 companies you represent does, in fact, currently hold the 

trademark, correct? 

Mr. REINSCH. I’m sorry? 

Mr. ISSA. The maker of Havana Club is one of the 200 members 

of your consortium? 

Mr. REINSCH. If you’re asking me if Pernod Ricard is one of—— 

Mr. ISSA. Yes. 

Mr. REINSCH [continuing]. Our members, the answer is yes. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. I just want to make sure that, you know—— 

Mr. REINSCH. Yes. 

Mr. ISSA. It’s not the 199 as much as it’s the one. 

Mr. REINSCH. Well, no. Our members are the U.S. subs, in some 

cases. 

Mr. ISSA. Yes. 

Mr. REINSCH. I would argue that there’s 200 American companies, but there are other companies as well. 

Mr. ISSA. We’ll see. 

Mr. Tamargo. 

TESTIMONY OF MAURICIO J. TAMARGO, POBLETE TAMARGO 

LLP, FORMER CHAIRMAN, FOREIGN CLAIMS SETTLEMENT 

COMMISSION OF THE UNITED STATES, DEPARTMENT OF 

JUSTICE 

Mr. TAMARGO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

Subcommittee. It is an honor to appear before you today. 

I commend this Subcommittee for convening this hearing and for 

including certified claims against Cuba. I hope the Subcommittee 

continues to play an active role in the long-overdue settlement of 

these Americans claims. 

Over 55 years ago, the Communist Government of Cuba confiscated real and personal property of thousands of Americans and 

others living and doing business in Cuba. To this day, that chapter 

represents the largest confiscation of American property in history, 

and there has been no progress in settling the claims or addressing 

other potential Cuban debts, as called for under U.S. law. 

Caveat emptor, or buyer beware, is generally the rule in international commerce but not when a foreign government injures an 

American or confiscates his or her property. In those cases, it is the 

responsibility and the expectation that the U.S. Government will 

do all it can to achieve justice for its own nationals. Under international law, all countries are expected to do the same for their 

own nationals. 

The confiscation of American property by Cuba was so significant 

that the U.S. Government enacted certain trading restrictions regarding Cuba, which have become known as the Cuban embargo. 

The U.S. Congress has repeatedly declared that this embargo will 

not be lifted until the American certified claims are paid and settled by Cuba. That was the promise made by the U.S. Government 

to the claimants. Unfortunately, both Democratic and Republican 

administrations have weakened the sanctions on Cuba without securing concessions or commitments from Cuba regarding the 

claims. 
66 

I am encouraged but guarded by the ongoing negotiations between the United States and Cuba regarding the possible settlement of American claims and related issues. There are 5,913 certified claims against the Government of Cuba, the last two of which 

the Commission certified under my chairmanship. When all claims 

are certified, they are valued at $1.8 billion. Today, they are valued 

at $7 billion to $8 billion. And I thank the Chairman for that clarification question to the Secretary, because, with interest, they were 

valued closer to $8 billion. No American claims program has been 

left pending and unsettled for this long. 

Under international law, the Cuban Government can confiscate 

property, but the U.S. has a right to fair compensation for its citizens. I believe the U.S. should agree to nothing less than full 

amount of value for their claims plus 100 percent of the interest. 

Cuba can and should pay this price. Cuba should not get a free ride 

for stealing American property, sometimes by force, and without 

compensation. 

A few recommendations to the Congress. 

First and foremost, these certified claims were the reason the 

embargo was created in the first place, and Congress must not pass 

any legislation which further eases the embargo unless these 

claims are settled. 

The U.S. gets only one shot at this. We have only two things 

Cuba wants: access to credit and access to the U.S. marketplace. 

If the Congress gives those away or allows them to be given away 

without getting these claims paid, then the Congress will have 

failed to stand up for these American families and companies. It is 

also inviting other countries to take more American property. 

Second, I urge the Congress to enact legislation granting limited 

authority to the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission to update 

the certified claims with the current claim-holder of interest for 

each claim. 

As I explained, claims programs are not designed to go unpaid 

for 55 years. Multiple generations of claim-holders have come and 

gone, and it will possibly take years to ascertain the identity of the 

current claimants. Not only is it good governmental housekeeping 

with no additional cost to the taxpayer, but it also sends a strong 

message to Cuba. 

Thirdly, although I am optimistic that the certified claims will 

get paid, you never know. We’ve been waiting for 55 years, and we 

may get more of the same status quo. Therefore, I propose the following. 

We know the current American trade and travel business with 

Cuba is trespassing on American property. We know this because 

a runway expansion at Jose Marti Airport was built on land subject 

to a certified claim. And the same is also true of most other Cuban 

air and sea ports, including the Port of Mariel and much of its infrastructure. They all are on land which is the subject of an American claim. And there may be other debts by other Americans and 

foreign nationals. 

If these talks fizzle out, Congress should consider enacting a 

trespass penalty of 10 percent on all transactions with Cuba. That 

would be on all trade, travel, commerce, remittances, toll calls, 

gifts, flyover fees, port duty, everything. 
67 

The proceeds collected by this trespass penalty would go into a 

fund which would pay all certified claimants their full amount, including interest. This trespass penalty would not release Cuba of 

its debt, but now the debt would be owed to the U.S. Government 

instead of the individual claimants. Those doing travel and trade 

with Cuba should consider this trespass penalty as the cost of trafficking in stolen property. 

The current and seemingly never-ending waiting by the claimants is unacceptable and intolerable. It is the responsibility of the 

Congress to end this embarrassing 55-year wait by our fellow 

Americans. 

Fourth, I recommend and urge all American families and companies that are holding certified claims to become engaged in this discussion. Write your Congressman, your Senator, the President, the 

State Department, and continue writing and calling until these 

claims are settled. 

American taxpayers are owed compensation by Cuba. They need 

to demand that their claims be settled. And if they’re not going to 

be settled, they should be paid by the trespass penalty. It is wrong 

to continue to hold claimants hostage to this seemingly never-ending battle over Cuba policy. It is unfair to many American families 

who did nothing but courageously go to Cuba to build a business 

or try to start a new life. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tamargo follows:] 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. 

Ms. Escasena. 

TESTIMONY OF LILLIAM ESCASENA, 

CUBAN PROPERTY CLAIMANT, MIAMI, FL 

Ms. ESCASENA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the 

Members of the Committee. 

Mr. ISSA. I think maybe pull your mike a little closer. 

Ms. ESCASENA. A little bit closer? 

Mr. ISSA. Yeah, please. Thank you. 

Ms. ESCASENA. Thank you for giving me this wonderful opportunity to tell my story. 

I am a Cuban-born and American citizen. My family left Cuba 

in 1960. They silently planned their exodus for fear of persecution. 

They also had to plan financially how they would survive this exile. 

No matter how terrified they were of their immediate future, 

their mentality was that this would not be permanent and that 

they would return to their beautiful island once again. 

My grandfather, Federico, on my mother’s side came from a humble beginning. He was born in Caibarien las Villas, lost his dad at 

the age of 9, and in order to help his mother provide for him and 

his four siblings, he worked on the docks after school every day. He 

would finish high school before he began working full-time. 

While his future looked promising, the financial crisis in 1929 

left him jobless. He took all the savings he had, his experience and 

contacts, and became a steamship agent, opening his own office as 

a customhouse broker in Caibarien and some years later in Havana. He would then open sub-agencies in every key port in Cuba 

and an office on Wall Street. 

In 1938, his success in Cuba would get him recognized by the 

U.S. and make him a consular agent. My grandfather had finally 

built a name for his family and their future generations. 

My father, Manolin, started at the age of 10 working alongside 

his dad to help create and build the family business. My grandfather, Manolo, started a company of explosives that would later be 

contracted for mining and the creation of roads throughout the entire island. Their growth and success would soon move their main 

factory and operations to Havana. The business continued to flourish, and my father continued making large investments, aiding the 

growth and expansion. 

Castro’s regime of terror started by confiscating property from 

big landowners, arresting and accusing innocent individuals of 

being against the government, sending these individuals to the firing squad without a trial. Castro would stop at no cost. 

The Cuban reality came knocking at my parents’ front door, literally, when Castro’s men came searching for my father at gunpoint. Their demands were simple. They would take my father’s 

business, his factory, equipment, and offices, and all of the land. 

My grandfather, Federico, was stripped of his four homes in 

Miramar, his business, commercial property, and all other equipment from which he ran his operation. Currently, my house where 

I was born is an embassy, for the record. Not only did Castro steal 

physical property that belonged to my family, but also destroyed 

the legacy that they worked their whole lives to build and someday 
79 

pass on to the children and grandchildren. And even though the 

Castro brothers and others said they would pay the family for this, 

they never did. 

My family was not the only one to suffer this fate. Hundreds of 

thousands of Cuban families and Americans were forced to leave 

their homeland and everything they built. 

After over 55 years, the same Communist dictator continues to 

destroy the beautiful island that more than a million Cuban Americans used to call home. The time is long overdue for the U.S. Government to acknowledge and demand restitution for all the Cuban 

Americans and so many other victims of Cuban communism. 

We have pledged our allegiance to this beautiful country and ask 

our country help us secure justice. While the properties that were 

stripped from us may hold a monetary value, the pain and suffering of my parents and my entire generation is far greater than 

any dollar amount. My parents longed to return to Cuba, the country that they adored, to smell the ocean in Varadero, to walk El 

Malecon, to feel free once again in their ancestral homeland. They 

passed never being able to fulfill these dreams. 

Although my parents couldn’t fulfill these dreams, I am here to 

see their dreams out for them and for every Cuban American family. These dreams are not driven by money. They are driven by the 

need for justice, the same kind of justice the U.S. advocates to the 

people of this country. 

Today, I feel you have offered our family and others like it an 

opportunity to help start to right this wrong and begin to heal very 

old wounds. You honor the memory and sacrifice of our families, 

and for that, we thank you. Please, help all victims of Cuban communism seek justice. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Escasena follows:] 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. That’s a very compelling story. 

We now go to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. DeSantis. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the testimony of the witnesses. 

You know, this policy is frustrating because you have a country 

and a regime that has been hostile to us since its inception at the 

revolution. They confiscated all this property. No one’s ever been 

given recompense for that. They’ve tortured people. They’ve imprisoned people for political purposes. During the Cold War, they 

would export guerilla fighters to do our enemies’ bidding. 

And so now we are, with this regime, they’re harboring one of 

the FBI’s most wanted terrorists, Joanne Chesimard. And so we do 

this change in policy and what are we getting? I think Mr. 

Tamargo said we should not give them a free ride. Unfortunately, 

I think the Administration is doing exactly that. 

All this property should have been paid as the price of negotiation. And, yet, we’re showing, basically, we’re providing Castro, the 

Castro brothers a road where they can get away with this, because 

they’re getting some of the cash and credit they need. They’re getting the lifeline that they need. But we, you still have Joanne 

Chesimard there. You still have all these claimants who had their 

property seized. And so I think it’s very, very frustrating. And you 

even have outlets like The Washington Post editorializing, hey, this 

is not working, the Castro brothers are not changing. 

Let me ask you, Ms. Escasena, has the Administration listened 

to your concerns? 

Ms. ESCASENA. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. DESANTIS. So do you feel a sense of betrayal that they’re not 

listening to you or doing anything for you? 

Ms. ESCASENA. I feel that he has not reached out to any of us, 

any of the Cuban Americans, and has not heard our stories. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Now, Mr. Wilson, the State Department testified, 

you were here for that, and they basically said, look, the courts are 

going to resolve this issue in terms of the Havana Club Rum. But 

hasn’t this issue already been resolved? 

Mr. WILSON. Yes, yes, Mr. Congressman DeSantis. There’s been 

tons of litigation already, and actually unfair litigation, that we 

and the Arechabalas have had to endure for years. And yes, with 

this action, we’re going to end up having to do more litigation and 

attempt to make sure that the wrong is righted. But the problem 

is, and I think it was stated earlier in the first panel, why should 

families like the Arechabalas have to resort to litigation? Why? 

And that’s why Section 211 was passed, because there’s a bright 

line rule there not to recognize those confiscatory measures. Look 

at the Arechabalas. They were put out of business. Their family 

lawyer was put in jail for 18 years. They didn’t have advice. They 

didn’t know how to do things in America. And now they’re going 

to be resorted to have to go through expensive litigation? That’s not 

fair. 

And I’m concerned that our government starts their path down 

to resolve these confiscations, and the first one they start with is 

to recognize the rights to the confiscator who took the rights from 

that family. My God. 
85 

Mr. DESANTIS. It’s not providing great incentives for future behavior, I mean, that’s for sure. 

Mr. Tamargo, you mentioned, and I think this is a good point, 

you’re talking about expanding commerce with the Castro regime. 

So someone pulls into a port. That port very well may likely have 

been seized by a private property owner. Someone staying in a 

hotel, that may very well have been seized property. 

So some people have this argument that, oh, you’re opening it 

up, you can create more market, and this is how economies change 

and societies change. But free enterprise depends on the rule of 

law, and this is basically conducting commerce on the backs of confiscated property. So it’s really undercutting the rule of law because 

the regime is going to now profit even more based on the actions 

they took. Do you agree with that? 

Mr. TAMARGO. I certainly do, Congressman. It’s worth pointing 

out that the licensing that Treasury is issuing for a lot of this commerce and travel and trade and shipping is using confiscated property that has not been compensated, and that’s contrary to U.S. 

law. And they simply issue the license, but they don’t inquire or 

drill down in the application enough to bring that to light. And 

that’s how they’re able to issue this license without having to admit 

that they’re in violation of the law. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Well, I appreciate the testimony. I mean, the bottom line is this is a major change in policy. We’ve seen the Cuban 

regime benefit. 

And here’s the thing: They’ve been trading with all these other 

countries for this whole time. Has that benefited the people of 

Cuba? No, it doesn’t, because the money goes to the military, the 

intelligence services, and the regime. It doesn’t go to the Cuban 

people. 

And so this is a benefit to the Castro brothers. And for us not 

to get even one claim paid before we’ve gone down this road, I obviously think it’s bad policy. 

But I really appreciate the Chairman calling the hearing, and 

Congress needs to stay engaged in this issue. I yield back. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. And thank you for your insightful questions. 

I’ll now recognize myself for a few questions. 

Mr. Tamargo, you’re an expert in the area of these claims, and 

you worked on it, and I thank you for your efforts with the Commission, for a very long time. 

You proposed essentially Congress acting to reopen. Could you 

elaborate a little bit more on that? I want to make sure I understand it. Because it does seem like the only way to get justice—and 

I’m going to take Mr. Reinsch a little bit to task here. If I understood him correctly, he sort of called our treatment of South Africa 

when it was an apartheid as a failed policy that didn’t work. And 

I’m old enough—— 

Mr. REINSCH. That was not what I said. But we can discuss it 

later. 

Mr. ISSA. Well, when you referenced it as not going down the 

road of South Africa, I must tell you, I’m very proud that America 

and the world went down a road with South Africa and forced a 

change. 
86 

So as we look at forcing a change, if this Administration won’t 

do it, or at least accounting for that change, would you go through 

the benefits of reopening and properly assessing the claims. 

Mr. TAMARGO. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a proposal 

that we’ve been advocating for a while now. The Commission, when 

it adjudicated these claims, it completed its work in 1972, and by 

statute its authority ended over the claims. And the claimant is the 

one responsible for keeping his own records current. But that was 

50—you know, 40 years ago. 

Mr. ISSA. So what you’re saying is people die. 

Mr. TAMARGO. People die. 

Mr. ISSA. There’s probate. The only way to really know that the $7 billion or $8 billion, who is entitled to it, would be to essentially 

allow the Commission to reopen and evaluate who they are. 

Mr. TAMARGO. While I was there as chairman, we did try to unofficially update the records as best we could. We did research. We 

contacted claimants. We reached out with outreach efforts. And we 

did a fraction of updating. But even that is unofficial. And we don’t 

have the authority to require documentation that would prove their 

actual ownership. And I suspect that many of the claimants of 

record have conflicting interest in the same claim, because nobody 

knows for sure, there is no authority to determine who was the actual claimant. 

That normally gets sorted out by the Treasury Department when 

it’s distribution time. When the offending country pays the settlement amount, then this distribution happens at Treasury. But the 

claims programs don’t go 55 years unpaid. So we’re in a new situation here. 

And when and if there is a settlement with the government of 

Cuba, it’ll take quite a bit of effort for Treasury to find out who 

are the appropriate recipients of these certified claim amounts and 

it will just take too long. I mean, I believe this is time being wasted. 

The Commission has the expertise to do this updating of the 

records. It’s already budgeted. They have a staff. They could be 

doing this under their own authority. And they could be, with limited reopening of the program, not to revisit the amounts or anything, but simply the identity of who the certified claimant is supposed to be. And that would be what I would propose. 

Mr. ISSA. So unless we want to go to Ancestry.com to find out 

all of this, we must find a way to make sure that the records stay 

current so that, if there’s a disagreement, it can be adjudicated by 

a family. Because, I mean, we all understand that mom left everything to you but didn’t name that asset. When you die, who is to 

say that your siblings’ children aren’t going to make the claim since 

it wasn’t named in the will, just as an example. 

Mr. TAMARGO. That’s a very good example. These family probate 

matters get very complicated. And Treasury normally would sort 

through that, but they only do, like—they don’t have this many of 

them to do. I suspect there’s going to be 5,000 of them or maybe 

5,500 of them to do and it’ll just be quite an undertaking. The probate cases would have to be probably opened in many cases to 

begin a probate process that never was done because there were no 

assets at the time. 
87 

Mr. ISSA. And, Ms. Escasena—I apologize, one of my worst things 

is pronunciation of names. And with a name like Issa, go figure. 

You mentioned, though, that your family home was large enough 

that today it’s an embassy. It’s an embassy of whom? 

Ms. ESCASENA. It’s the Embassy of Belize. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. Now, an embassy is sovereign land of the country that occupies it. So if I’m to understand, the Cuban Government at gunpoint took your family home and has sold it and made 

it a sovereign asset of another country. So Belize took, you as an 

American, they took your land, and they sold it to another country 

that now occupies it and considers it their embassy, their sovereign 

land. That’s your testimony? 

Ms. ESCASENA. Yes. That’s what it appears. We found out actually last year that it was an embassy. 

Mr. ISSA. And it’s a small amount of the assets that were taken, 

but meaningful. 

Ms. ESCASENA. Correct. 

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Wilson, I’m going to ask you a little tougher question. The Bacardi family at the time of the revolution were Cubans. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. WILSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ISSA. They were Cuban citizens? 

Mr. WILSON. Yes. 

Mr. ISSA. They had assets outside of Cuba, but they resided disproportionately in Cuba, correct? 

Mr. WILSON. Yes, most, I’m sure most. It’s a large family. It’s 

much larger now. But most, for sure. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. So the corporation was based in Cuba, correct? 

Mr. WILSON. Correct. 

Mr. ISSA. So I just want to make sure I understand—I’m holding 

up Havana Club, but I could be holding up a bottle of Bacardi— 

I want to make sure I understand this as best you can legally. If 

it was legal to take this from one family, then whatever the legality 

of their already selling everywhere in the world, 80 percent of the 

world’s economy is not the United States, they’re already selling 

this in 80 percent, is there any legal difference in your mind between what they did to one family and what they would have, 

could have, and, if we’re to believe the State Department, essentially should have done to the Bacardi family, which is they should 

have your company’s name and be selling it and reclaim it, at least 

in America, based on the fact that they took it, therefore, they 

should have it? Am I missing something in the understanding of 

property rights? 

Mr. WILSON. No, Mr. Chairman, you’re not. And they attempted 

very much to do that same thing to Bacardi. They very much did. 

They tried to. They produced a product and called it Bacardi and 

tried to sell it around the world. 

Fortunately, Bacardi had assets outside of Cuba, and so it could 

produce its Bacardi rum product and go to those same countries 

and fight in litigation and within the governments. And we won. 

Yes, we did. We were fortunate enough to be in that position. But 

many other Cuban families, like the Arechabala, were not in that 

position and are still not in that position. 
88 

Mr. ISSA. And the Arechabala family, I want to understand this, 

because I think it’s important to make the record complete. You did 

not wholly acquire the rights to Havana Club, you have a license 

agreement effectively, don’t you? They receive a benefit from every 

bottle sold. 

Mr. WILSON. We do have a—we have a Commission agreement 

with them. I prefer not to go into the details. 

Mr. ISSA. No, and we don’t need to know the details. The point 

is, the Picard Company of France, they offered to buy it. They 

knew that there was a right, and they offered to buy it from the 

Arechabala family. But, apparently, they were only willing to pay 

a de minimus amount and said, you know, we already have the 

rest of the world, but we’ll give you a little something for the U.S., 

is my understanding. 

Mr. WILSON. Yes. Or something similar to that, yes. 

Mr. ISSA. The late owner came to your company’s principals and 

negotiated a deal that he felt for his family was fair. Is that correct? 

Mr. WILSON. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. ISSA. And that arrangement continues today as the Bacardi 

family expands the sales that you began in 1994. 

How many States are you currently selling in? 

Mr. WILSON. It goes up and down, but we’ve been, over the last 

10, 12 years, we’ve sold in roughly 18 different States. But it goes 

up and down. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. And you’re unable to sell in the rest of the world 

because Cuba, what they stole they got to keep by an agreement 

with the French company to distribute it, right? 

Mr. WILSON. Yes. The Cuban joint venture is selling that product 

throughout the rest of the world, really off of the unfair, illegal 

confiscations in Cuba, because that’s obviously where it started, as 

I mentioned earlier. 

Mr. ISSA. Right. They obviously get all the assets. 

I did a little looking before this hearing, and Cuba exports about 

$5 billion of goods, some sugar, obviously Cuban cigars, and rum. 

They import about $15 billion. Now, the arithmetic of that befuddled me a little, so I did a little checking. Apparently, what they 

import is the value, but they actually don’t pay for it. A great deal 

of it comes from countries, such as Venezuela, that essentially it’s 

a subsidy. 

So with 80 percent of the world’s market available to this totalitarian dictatorship, this last remaining bastion of Stalinism other 

than North Korea, they basically have $5 billion of economy selling 

the whole rest of the world. So when Mr. Reinsch, on behalf of 200- 

plus companies he represents, talks about 4,000 trademarks that 

might be in peril, those trademarks, U.S. company trademarks, 

how many dollars of sales are there in Cuba by U.S. companies 

today, to your knowledge? 

Mr. WILSON. I don’t have that number. But my—— 

Mr. ISSA. Would zero be a pretty round number, since there’s an 

outright embargo and we’re not selling? 

Mr. WILSON. I don’t know specifically, Mr. Chairman. But there 

are some very small AG or medical—— 
89 

Mr. ISSA. Right, I know there’s a small amount of exemptions. 

Which brings up the point of if you applied for a license, since you 

have the worldwide rights for Bacardi, would they recognize your 

trademark application in Cuba? 

Mr. WILSON. Well, we do not own the Bacardi trademark there. 

Cuba Rum Corporation owns our trademark in Cuba. 

Mr. ISSA. Oh, okay. So they only recognize American marks unless, of course, they’ve already confiscated it. 

To your knowledge, has Coca-Cola been able to sell there? Didn’t 

they seize all the Coca-Cola assets? Isn’t that part of the, Mr. 

Tamargo, isn’t Coca-Cola a major claimant in those 6,000? 

Mr. TAMARGO. Yes, they are. That’s one of the top 10 or 15 

claims. 

Mr. ISSA. And the operation there was owned by the Coca-Cola 

Company, right? 

Mr. TAMARGO. Yes, it is. 

Mr. ISSA. So it was a U.S. company. Had it been a franchise or 

some other agreement, they wouldn’t get a penny, right? They 

wouldn’t be on your list of 6,000? 

Mr. TAMARGO. Well, they wouldn’t have been certified as an 

American claim. It would have been not an American claim. But 

it was an American company, so they were certified for, I think, 

$27.5 million. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. 

Now, I’m just going to close with a question. And this is not intended to conflate the two, to say that these things are equal. But 

when you were dealing with these injustices, your Commission, 

didn’t it come out of basically the war crimes of World War II. 

Mr. TAMARGO. Yes. The Commission is over 50 years old. Before 

those years, it was comprised of two commissions, the War Claims 

Commission and the International Settlement Commission. And 

they were merged together to create the Foreign Claims Settlement 

Commission. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. So I want to go through the Commission, because we are going to look at legislation that falls under this Committee related to that. Essentially, your legacy is that you are— 

your Commission is, in fact, the commission that looked at the confiscation by the Nazis—the Japanese too—but by the Nazis, the 

Italians, et cetera, in World War II. 

Now, you weren’t empowered to take care of victims of the Holocaust unless it was an American family? How did that work? 

Mr. TAMARGO. The Commission did conduct a small Holocaust 

program, and it was back in the 1990’s. It was comprised of mostly 

American POWs, when captured by the Germans, who were put in 

Holocaust camps. 

Mr. ISSA. The work camps and so on. 

Mr. TAMARGO. Correct. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. 

Mr. TAMARGO. Otherwise, the Holocaust—— 

Mr. ISSA. Were separate. 

Mr. TAMARGO [continuing]. Were separate. 

Mr. ISSA. But you did work with essentially assets that were stolen from Americans in that period of time in Italy, in France, in 

Germany, in Japan? 
90 

Mr. TAMARGO. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. So your recognition is that these countries committed crimes, took money, took assets without any payment. And, 

ultimately, we made whole, as you said earlier, in some cases, by 

an appropriation from Congress, but we made whole the victims or 

we didn’t quit with those countries. In other words, we didn’t let 

Germany off the hook or Japan off the hook unless there was a resolution agreed and an agreement of who paid what, correct? 

Mr. TAMARGO. That’s absolutely correct, Mr. Chairman. All 

claims programs were settled. The American claimants were compensated. And it was a condition of the offending country having 

normalized trade relations with us. 

Mr. ISSA. So this Administration is ignoring the history of your 

Commission, the history of it, by normalizing relations with absolutely no agreement other than we’ve agreed that we’re going to 

begin talking. They have no agreement whatsoever to take care of 

those 6,000 people that you represent in some ways here today and 

the perhaps tens of thousands of Cuban Americans who were not 

Americans in 1960. 

Mr. TAMARGO. It is possible that they are working toward a negotiated settlement which would result in the compensation of the 

claimants. That is my hope. But what really I suspect holds them 

to that effort is the Congress needs to—the embargo, for the most 

part, cannot be lifted, the remaining parts of the embargo won’t be 

lifted without congressional action. And the Congress won’t accept, 

I would hope, a bad deal that does not give justice to the certified 

claimants. 

Mr. ISSA. So presuming the President with the stroke of a pen 

and a phone call doesn’t somehow do it, there is one and only one 

tool left to force the Castros to properly compensate for what they 

did, at least as to American persons, 55 years ago, and that’s the 

embargo. 

Mr. TAMARGO. Yes, sir. That is what I believe is the only thing 

that would bring them—that has actually brought them to the 

table right now. Because their other, their subsidized trading partner of Venezuela is faltering, as is their other trading commerce is 

faltering, and they would need this embargo to be lifted. 

Mr. ISSA. Well, I’m not a businessman the way I once was, but 

when I was a full-time businessman and I looked at—if I looked 

at $5 billion out and $15 billion in, I would, as you say, be looking 

to change an arrangement. The one amazing thing I think that we 

all recognize is, unless Cuba changes and allows their people to be 

empowered, even with access to an additional 20 percent of the 

world’s market, I don’t believe they can ever compete globally or 

even feed their people properly. 

I want to thank all of you for your testimony. As in the last 

panel, we will leave the record open for 5 days. There may be additional questions from Members who could not make it here this 

evening. 

This was a reschedule, and I appreciate all of you being able to 

meet the reschedule. But it wasn’t at an ideal time for a hearing. 

Additionally, I would welcome any supplemental remarks you 

may have or information you want to put in, including matters for 

the record. 
91 

And with that, you have my thanks. And we are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 7:33 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(93) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD
94 

Material submitted by Jaime Suchlicki, Emilio Bacadi Moeau Distinguished 

Professor and Director, Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies, 

University of Miami; and Jose Azel, Senior Research Associate, Institute 

for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies, University of Miami 
95 
96 
97 
98 

f 
99 

Response to Questions for the Record from the Honorable Kurt Tong, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, U.S. Department of State 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 

f 
106 

*Note: The Committee did not receive a response to these questions at the time this hearing 

record was finalized and submitted for printing. 

Questions for the Record submitted to Mary Boney Denison, 

Commissioner for Trademarks, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office* 
107 
108 

f 
109 

Response to Questions for the Record from William A. Reinsch, President, 

National Foreign Trade Council 

Æ