F ILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS ELE VENTH CIRCUIT Dec em ber 17, 2008 THOMAS K. K

AHN [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 7- 10 10 6

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 6- 20 16 9- CR-F AM
UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us JUAN PENTON, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Dece m ber 1 7, 2 00 8) Befo re BI RCH an d M ARCUS, Ci rcu itJu dg es , andFORRESTER, Dis tri ctJu dg e. * PER CURI AM:

Honora ble J . Owen F orre ster, Senior United States District Judge for the N orthern * District of Ge org ia, sitting by designation.Defen da nt , Ju anJo se Pen to n, was pro se cu te d fo r vi ol at in g 1 8 U.S.C.

§ 2 32 0( a), the Trad em arkCo un te rfei ti ng Act. Aft er a jury tri al , Pen to n was fou nd gu il ty andth e co urt s en te nc edhi m to fiv e y ears ’ pr ob at io n wi thfiv e m on th s o f ho m e co nf

in em en t, a $ 75 00 fin e an d a$3 00 sp eci al ass es sm en t. Onap pe al , Defen da ntarg ue s t ha t (1 ) th e d is tri ctco urt erredin de nyin g h is m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o f acqui tt al forth e in su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce i n g en eral an d sp eci fic al ly w it h re fere nc e to Co un t 3 of t he in di ct m en t; (2) th e d is tri ctco urt erred in refu si ng to gi ve Defen da nt ’s reque st edjury in stru ct io n o n h is th eo ry of t he de fen se ; an d (3 ) th e Gov ern m en t’s i m pr op er cl os in g a rg um en t d ep riv edDefen da nt of hi s due pro ces s ri gh t t o afai r tr ia l. Aft er a t ho ro ug h re vi ew, we fin d n o rev ers ib le erro r an d a ffi rm . I. Ba ck gr ou nd The i nd ic tm en t ch arg edDefen da ntwith t hr ee co un ts of t raff ic ki ng an d at te m pt in g t o t raff

ic in co un te rfei t g oo ds – ci ga rs – o n Oct ob er 5 , 20 05 . Cou nt1 of th e in di ctm en t al le ge s t raff ic ki ng of C ub anCig ar Br an ds , N.V. (“ CCB ”) m ark s, Co un t 2 of M ax Ro hrm ark s, an d C ou nt3 o f Gen eral Cig ar Co . m ark s. Th ree ot he r co un ts were dro pp edby the Gov ern m en t attri al an d are n otat i ss ue . CCB is a co rp or at io n o f th e Nethe rland s An ti ll es with i ts pri nc ip al pl ace o f bu si ne ss in Fo rt Lau de rd al e, Fl or id a. CCB o wns th e Uni te d S ta te s t rad em ark s fo r
2th e fo ll owi ng bra nd s an d a ss oc ia te d a rtwo rk : Mo nt e Cri st o, H. Upm an n, an d P or

Larran ag a. Max Ro hris a Dela ware co rp or at io n wi th it s p rin ci pa l p la ce o f bu si ne ss in Dela ware. Ma x R oh r own s t he Uni te d S ta te s trad em ark s fo r Ro m eo y Ju li et a an d Tri ni da d. Al ta di s U.S.A. is a Dela ware co rp or at io n wi th it s p rin ci pa l pl ace o f bu si ne ss in Fo rt Lau de rd al e, Fl or id a. Alt ad is U.S.A. is t he ex cl us iv e li cen se e o f CCB an d M ax Ro hr
. Gen eral Cig ar Co . is a Delaware co rp or at io n wi th it s p rin ci pa l p la ce o f bu si ne ss in New York , New York . Gener al Cig ar o wns th e Uni te d S ta te s tra de m ark s fo r Co hi ba , Part ag as , Flo r de Taba co s d e Parta ga s YCA, Ho y o d e Mo nt erre y , Hoy o d e Mo nt erre y de Jo se Gene r Exc al ib ur , Bol iv ar Si m on Bo li va r, Si m on Bo li va r th e Lib erat or , Pun ch Eli te , Pun ch Punc h, Pu nc h Gra n F ab ric a d e Tab aco s Pu nc h, an d d e J. Val le y ca Ma nu el Lop ez Hab an a. The po li ce i nv es ti ga ti on of P en to n b eg anwhen Alt ad is U.S.A. pro vi de d in fo rm at io n t o t he Mi am i-Da de Co un ty pol ic e th aten ab le d t he m to sen d a n un de rco ve r of

fic er t o Def

en da nt ’s sh op . In a s ti ng th atoc cu rredon Octo be r 5, 20 05 , Defen da ntso ldto th e o ffi cer a nda co nf id en ti al in fo rm an t s ix ty box es of ci ga rs : fi fte enbo xe s o f Co hi baEsp le nd id os , ten bo xe s o f Mo nt ecri st o Nu m be r 2, te n b ox es of R om eo y

Ju li et a Ch ur ch il l, t enbo xe s o f Part ag as Lus it an ia , ten bo xe s of Hoyo de Mo nt erre y

Co ro na s, an d fi ve bo xe s o f Hoyo d e Mo nt erre y Py ram id
. 3The bo xe s co nt ai ne d aco m bi na ti on of t rad em ark edterm s an d a rtwo rkas we ll as th e wor ds “ Hab an a,” “ Hab an a, Cuba ,” “ Hab an os SA,” an d “ Hech o e n C ub a.” The bo xe s wer e se al edwith fabr ic at edCuba n s eal s an d c on ta in edfak e Cuban go ve rn m en t g ua ran te es in th e b ox es . “ Hab an a” was als o p rin te d o n the cig ar rin gs . DE150 , at 8 2- 83
. Eric W orkm an , Alt ad is U.S.A.’ s v ic e-p res id en t o f m ark et in g a ndna ti on al
acco un ts , tes ti fie d a t tria l. He i de nt ifi edtra de m ark edna m es an d artwo rkfor Mo nt ecri st o, Ro m eo y

Ju li et a, Trin id ad , H. Upm an n, an d P orLarran ag a. DE15 0, at67 -8 2. Mr . W orkm anpubl is he d t o the jury ge nu in e ci ga r bo xe s, ci gars , and ci ga r ri ng s fo r th es e b ran ds . Id. He al so tes ti fie d t ha t the bo xe s s ol d b y Defen dant
were n otso ldwith Al ta di s U.S.A.’s au th or iz at io n. Id . at 8 3- 85 , 91 . Mr. W orkm an te st ifi edth athe un de rs to odDefen da nt ’s bo xe s re fere nc edCuba , bu t tha t i t was no t
un us ua l fo r ge nu in e ci ga r m anuf actur ers to refe ren ce Cubain th ei r pa ck ag in g. DE15 0, at91 -9 9. Co op er Gard in er, v ic e p res id en t o f m ark et in g fo r Gen eral Cig ar Co ., pro vi de d s im il ar t es ti m on y forth e b ran ds Part ag as , Pun ch , Hoy o d e Mo nt erre y , Bol iv ar, an d C oh ib a. Genu in e b ox es , cig ars , andcig ar ri ng s fo r th es e br an ds were p ub li sh edto th e jury. DE15 2, at50 -5 5. Defen da nt ’s witne ss , Gary Arzt , an i nv es to r, bu si ne ss co ns ul tant , andav id ci ga r sm ok er, al so tes ti fie d t ha t m os t co ns um ers do no t s ee the ou ts id e o f a ci ga r
4bo x a ndsi m pl y askfor a br an d n am e, su ch as M on te cri st o, wi th ou t s pe ci fy in g whe th er i t i s t he Cuba n v ari ety or v ari ety

so ldin th e Uni te d S ta te s. DE15 6, at94
- 95 . On cro ss -ex am in at io n, M r. Arzttes ti fie d tha t the artwork andtra de m arkon Defen da nt ’s Romeo y

Ju li et a ci ga r bo x was no t s ub st an ti al ly diff eren t fr om Alt ad is U.S.A.’ s R om eo y Ju li et a p ro du ct . Id. at11 0- 11 . Mr. Arzttes ti fie d t he
sa m e co nc ern in g Def

en da nt ’s Part ag as artwork a ndth attra de m ark edby G en eral Ci ga r inth e Uni te d S ta te s. Id . at 1 11 -1 2. Defen da nttes ti fie d a t tria l tha t h e was im it at in g t he Cuban b ran ds whi ch
were n otpro te ct edin th e Uni te d S ta te s. DE11 6, at13 -1 5. He s ai d h e d idno t th in k i t was a cri m e to sel l b ox es of r ep li ca “ Cuba n” cig ars . Id. at15 . He tes ti fie d th athe ha d n ev er s ol d fu ll bo xe s b efo re the st in g s al e an d h is bu si ne ss was s el li ng em pty “ Cuba n” tra de m ark edbo xe s t ha t wer e rep li cas of wh athe ha d i n C ub a as a ch il d b efo re the Rev ol ut io n. Id
. Bo th at t he co nc lu si on of t he Gov ern m en t’s ca se an d h is de fen se , Defen da nt
m ov edfora jud gm en t o f acqui tt al . Defen da ntarg ue d t ha t the re was no ev id en ce in th e rec or d t ha t the Co hi baEsp le nd id o a ndth e Parta ga s Lu si ta ni a ci ga r br an ds were “ in us e” i n t he Uni te d S ta te s, as requi redby the st atut e. DE15 6, at77 -7 9. Defen da ntals o c on te nd edth atth e ev id en ce s ho wedth atth ere wer e “pa ral le l”
m ark s i n t he Uni te d S ta te s an d C ub a an d t ha t Def en da nt ’s cig ar b ox es di d n ot
5im it at e th e Uni te d S ta te s m ark s, b utrathe r th e Cuba n m ark s wh ic h are n ot

pr ot ect edin th e Uni te d S ta te s u nd er the st ru ctur e o f th e Hel m s- Bu rto n s ta tu te . As
su ch , Defen da nt ’s con du ctdi d n otvi ol at e 1 8 U.S.C. § 23 20 (a). Id . at 8 0; DE15 8, at36 . W it h re sp ectto Defen dant ’s “ in us e” ar gu m en t o n t he Co hi baEsp le nd id o an d t he Part ag as Lus it an iacig ars , th e d is tri ctco urt n ot edth atin ad di ti on to th os e br an ds , Cou nt3 al so en co m pa ss edth e Hoyo d e Mo nt erre y bra ndforwhi ch th ere was tes ti m on y

of “ us e” i n t he Uni te d S ta te s. Th eref or e, th e co urt d en ie d Defen da nt ’s m ot io n o n t ha t b as is bu t n ot edth atitm ig htev en tu al ly hav e im pl ic at io ns forsen te nc in g. DE15 6, at79 . The co urt al so de ni edDefen da nt ’s
m ot io n o n h is Cuba n i m it at io n t he ory . Id. at84 -8 5. II . Dis cus si on A. Suff

ic ie ncy of t he Ev id ence W e rev ie w th e d en ia l o f a m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o f acqui tt al an d t he
su ffi ci en cy

of t he ev id en ce t o s us ta in a co nv ic ti on de no vo vi ewin g t he ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t favo rab le to th e g ov ern m en t, an d d rawi ng all reas on ab le in fere nc es an d c red ib il it y ch oi ces in fav orof t he jury’ s v erd ic t. Un it edSta te s v . Cam pa , 52 9 F .3d98 0, 9 92 (11 Cir . 20 08 ). “ Whe th er the go ve rn m en t p ro ve d t he th juri sd ic ti on al ele m en t [o f a s ta tu te ] is m eas ur edas ach al le ng e to th e su ffi ci en cy of

6th e ev id en ce.” Un it edSta te s v . Key , 76 F.3d35 0, 3 53 (11 Cir . 19 96 ) (p er th
cu ria m). Defen da ntco nt en ds th athi s co nv ic ti on vi ol at es th e ex pa nd edHelm s- Bu rto n Act b ecau se itequa te s t o the Gov ern m en t g ran ti ng pro te ct io n t o C ub anm ark s. He al so ass ert s t ha t the Gov ern m en t d idno t o fferpro of th atth e m ark s wer e “ inus e”
orth atth ei r us e wou ldres ul t i n c on su m er co nf us io n. We no te in it ia ll y

th at Defen da ntdi d n otrai se hi s co ns um er co nf us io n a rg um en t attri al , on hi s m ot io ns fo r acqui tt al , or a t an y

len gt h i n h is in it ia l ap pe ll at e b rie f. W e n eedno t d et erm in e whe th er Defe nd an t wai ve d t hi s i ss ue , ho wev er, b ecau se ev enco ns id eri ng Defen da nt ’s arg um en t, the Gov ern m en t p res en te d s uf fic ie ntev id en ce o f co ns um er co nf us io n a t tria l. To u nd ers ta ndth e co nt ex t o f Defen da nt ’s arg um en ts , so m e b ack gr ou ndon th e Cuba n re vo lu ti on an d e ve ntua l em ba rg o i m po se d b y th e Uni te d S ta te s i s he lp fu l. See ge ne ral ly E m pr es a Cuba nade l Tab aco v. Cu lb ro Co rp ., 39 9 F .3d46 2 (2 d C ir. 2 00 5) , and21 3 F . Sup p. 2 d 2 47 (S.D.N.Y. 20 02 ). Fid el Cas tro to ok
co nt ro l o f th e Cuba n g ov ern m en t o n J anua ry 1, 1 95 9. Cu lb ro , 21 3 F . Sup p. 2 d a t 25 6. Th e Cas tro reg im e n at io na li zedcig ar m anuf actur ers on Sep te m

be r 15 , 19 60
. Id . Som e o f th e o wne rs of t he ap pr op ria te d c om pa ni es fle d t o t he Uni te d S ta te s

7an d o th er co un tri es an d re op en edth ei r bu si ne ss es “us in g t he tra de m ark s t he ir

fam il ie s h adown edbe fo re the go ve rn m en t s ei zu re.” Id
. The Uni te d S ta te s i m

po se d a n e m

barg o o n C ub a in 19 63 . Cul br o, 3 99 F.3d at46 5. Th e te rm s o f th e em ba rg o wer e se t fo rth in reg ul at io ns pro m ul ga te d b y

th e Offi ce o f Fo rei gn Ass et s C on tro l wi th in th e Dep art m en t o f Treas ury . Id. Tho se reg ul at io ns were ev en tu al ly cod ifi edby Con gr es s i n 1 99 6 i n t he Cuba n Li be rty
an d Dem oc racy Sol id ari ty A ct(“ LIBERTAD Act” ), Pub. L. No. 1 04 -1 14 , Titl e I, § 1 02 , 11 0 S ta t. 7 92 (19 96 ) (co di fie d a t 2 2 U.S.C. § 60 32 (h )), al so kn own as t he Helm s- Bu rto n Act . The em ba rg o re gu la ti on s p rev en t Cuba n c ig ar co m pani es fro m se ll in g c ig ars in th e Uni te d S ta te s. Id . As in it ia ll y pro m ul ga te d, h owe ve r, th e em barg o d idno t p rev en t t ob acco co m pa ni es co nt ro ll edby the Cuban g ov ern m en t fro m reg is te rin g t rad em ark s i n t he Uni te d S ta te s. See Cu lb ro , 21 3 F . Sup p. 2 d a t 25 6; Em pr es a Cuba naExp orta do ra d e Ali m en to s y Produc to s Var io s v . Uni te d St at es Dep’t o f Treas ury , 51 6 F . Sup p. 2 d 4 3, 4 7 (D.D.C. 2 00 7) . In a s eri es of li ti ga ti on in th e 1 96 0s an d 1 97 0s , ho wev er, U.S. co urts de te rm in edth atth e fl eei ng fam il ie s h adob ta in edco m m on law ri gh ts to th e tr ad em ark s p rio r to th e na ti on al iz at io ns . Cul br o, 2 13 F. Sup p. 2 d a t 2 56 . As th e ri gh ts of t he in di vi du al
own ers ha d b een cla rif

ie d, s om e fam il ie s b eg ansel li ng tra de m arkreg is tra ti on s t o

8U.S. cig ar m anuf actur ers . Id. at25 6- 57 . Thu s, the no ti on of “pa ral le l b ran ds ” de ve lo pe d. Th atis , th e Cuba n g ov ern m en t s el ls a Cuba n c ig ar i n C ub a an d o th er p art s o f th e wor ldun de r th e sa m e ap pa ren t trad em arkas a n u nr el at ed co m pa ny tha t s el ls a no n- Cuba n c ig ar i n t he U.S. It is no t the same tra de m ark , ho wev er, as th e U.S. cig ars are s ol d u nd er trad em ark s whi ch th e o wne rs ha d re gi st eredan d u se d i n t he Uni te d S ta te s fo r th e sa le of t he ir c ig ars pri orto th e ex pr op ria ti on of t he Cuba n c ig ar co m pa ni es . Id . at 2 57
. The Helm s- Bu rto n Actwas fu rth er am en de d i n 1 99 9 t o e xp an d i ts co ve rag e to in te ll ectua l p ro pe rty rig ht s. Sect io n 2 11 of t he am en dm en t p ro vi de s: 1 (a) (1 ) Not wit hs ta nd in g a ny oth er p ro vi si on of l aw, no

tra ns act io n o r pa ym en t s ha ll be au th or iz edor app ro ve d pu rs ua ntto sec ti on 51 5.5 27 of t it le 31 , Cod e o f Fed eral Reg ul at io ns , as i n e ffec t o n S ep te m be r 9, 1 99 8, wi th res pe ctto a m ark , tra de na m e, orco m m erci al na m e th at is th e sa m e as or s ub st an ti al ly sim il ar t o am ark , tra de na m e, orco m

m erci al na m e th atwas u se d i n c on ne ct io n wit h abu si ne ss or a ss et s t ha t wer e co nf is cat edun le ss th e or ig in al own er o f th e m ark , tra de na m e, orco m m erci al na m e, orth e b on a fi de su cces so r-i n- in te res t h as ex pr es sl y co ns en te d. (2 ) No U.S. co urt s ha ll reco gn iz e, en fo rce o r ot he rwis e va li da te an y

ass ert io n o f ri gh ts by a des ig na te d n at io na l
This amendment wa s enac ted on Octobe r 21, 1998, in Section 211 of the Omnibus 1 Consolidated and Emerg ency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, Pub. L . No. 105-277, § 211, 112 Stat. 2681, 2681-88 (1998). The re is no off icial leg islative history

of this amendment which wa s passed a s part of a n omnibus appropriations bill and has no par ticular name. As the parties ha ve re fer red to it as the He lms-Burton Ac t, we will do so as well for the sake of consistency
. 9ba se d o n c omm on law ri gh ts or r eg is tra ti on ob ta in ed un de r su ch sec ti on 51 5.5 27 of s uc h aco nf is cat edm ark , tra de na m e, orco m

m erci al na m e. (b ) No U.S. co urt s ha ll reco gn iz e, en fo rce o r ot he rwis e v al id at e an y ass ert io n o f tr eat y

rig ht s b y a de si gn at edna ti on al or i ts su cces so r-i n- in te res t u nd er s ect io ns 44 (b ) or(e) o f th e Trad em arkAct o f 19 46 (15 U.S.C. § 1 12 6( b) or ( e)) fo r a m ark , tra de na m e, orco m

m erci al na m e th atis th e sa m e as or subs ta nt ia ll y

si m il ar t o am ark , tra de na m e, orco m m erci al na m e th atwas u se d i n c on ne ct io n wi tha bu si ne ss or a ss et s t ha t were co nf

is cat edun le ss th e o rig in al own er o f su ch m ark , tra de na m e, orco m

m erci al na m e, or

th e b on a fi de su cces so r-i nin te res t h as expr es sl y

co ns en te d. Id . The i m

po rt o f th is leg is la ti on is to pro hi bi t Cuban c om pani es fro m

reg is te rin g

“ ap pr op ria te d” tra de m ark s i n t he Uni te d S ta te s wi th ou t p erm is si on of t he ori gi na l
own er. U.S. co urts are al so pro hi bi te d fr om reco gn iz in g a ny suc h ri gh ts . Defen da nt ’s th eo ry

of the cas e is th athi s ci gar bo x re pl ic as were co pi es of Cuba n c ig ars an d t rad em ark s, n otth os e o f Alt ad is an d Gen eral Cig ar Co . Becau se Cuba n m ark s ar e n oten ti tl edto an y pro te ct io n i n t he Uni te d S ta te s, Defe nd an t arg ue s, h e can no t h av e co m m it te d acri m e b y

co pyin g C ub antra de m ark ed
m at eri al . The p ro bl em

forDefen da ntis th atwe ha ve alr eady reject edhi s d efen se in a si m il ar ca se . In Un it edSta te s v . Guerra, 2 93 F.3d12 79 (11 Cir . 20 02 ), th ree th de fen da nt s wer e in di ct edfortra ffi ck in g i n c ou nt erfe itcig ars . Guerr a al so de fen de d a ga in stth e ch arg es arg ui ng th athi s p ro du ct s wer e m ean t t o c op y th e Cuba n m ark s an d n otth e Uni te d S ta te s m ark s. Id . at 1 28 7. In affi rm in g Gu erra ’s
10co nv ic ti on un de r th e te rm s o f 18 U.S.C. § 2 32 0( d) , we det erm in edth at“ itis

irr el ev an t tha t Gu erradi d n otkn ow t he m ark s wer e reg is te redin th e Uni te d S ta te s, orth ou gh t the m ark s wer e o nl y unpr ot ect ab le Cuba n m ark s.” Id . Bas edon Gue rra, the refo re, Defe nd an t’s the ory of C ub anco un te rfei ti ng is no t av ai labl e to hi m . W e rejectDefen dant ’s arg um en t tha t Gu errais no lo ng er g oo d l aw be cau se itwas i ss ue d p rio r to th e 1 99 8 a m en dm en t o f th e Hel m s- Bu rto n Actwhi ch pu rp orte dl y

est ab li sh edth e id ea o f th e “pa ral le l m ark s.” Def en da nt ’s arg um en t wit h re sp ectto “pa ral le l m ark s” is pre m is edin hi s b el ie f th atun de r th e Hel m sBu rto n Act , par al le l m ark s ar e n oten ti tl edto pro te ct io n i n t he Uni te d S ta te s. We fin d, h owe ve r, th atth is is no t an accu rat e st at em en t o f th e la w. The Hel m s- Bu rto n Act p ro vi de s t ha t n o t ran sa ct io ns or e nf or cem en t o f ri gh ts of C ub antra de m ark s can oc cu r un de r Uni te d S ta te s l aw. Forth is reas on , th e d is tri ctco urt p ro pe rly in st ru ct edth e jury tha t Cuba n m ark s ar e en ti tl edto no pro te ct io n i n Un it edSta te s co urts . This li m it at io n, h owe ve r, is no t ex te nd edto a tr ad em arkth atis pro pe rly reg is te redwith t he Uni te d S ta te s Pa te ntan d Tra de m arkOffic e b y a co m pany in co rp or at edou ts id e o f Cuba . The m ere fa ctth atth e tr ad em ark s u se d b y Alt ad is
an d t he ot he r vi ct im s i n t hi s ca se are “ pa ral le l” to m ark s u se d b y Cuba n c om

pa ni es fo r Cuba n c ig ars m ark et edou ts id e th e Uni te d S ta te s d oe s n otm eanth atth e U.S.
11m ark s re gi st eredby U .S. co m pa ni es are n otpro te ct ed . Here, te st im on y at t ria l de m on st rat edth atth e o rig in al own ers so ldth ei r ri gh ts to va rio us co m pa ni es , in cl ud in g Al ta di s U.S.A. an d C ub anCig ar Co . Mor e si gn ifi can tl y , ho wev er, the re is no th in g i n t he Helm s- Bu rto n Actwhi ch in di cat es itwou ldap pl y to a fed eral cri m in al pro se cu ti on . Nex t, Defe nd an t ar gu es to us – as he di d i n t he di st ric t co urt –th athi s
m ot io n fo r acqui tt al on su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce s ho ul d a t l eas t h av e b een gr an te d o n C ou nt3 b ecau se th e ev id en ce s ho wedth atCo hi baEsp le nd id os an d Part ag as Lus it an iacig ars are n otso ldin th e Uni te d S ta te s an d t he refo re co ul d n ot be “ in us e” u nd er the term s o f § 2 32 0. Tit le 18 Sect io n 2 32 0( a) re ad s: Who ev er; in te nt io na ll y

tra ffi cs or a tt em

pt s t o t raff

ic in go od s o r se rv ic es an d kno win gl y

us es a co un te rfei t m arkon or i n c on ne ct io n wit h s uc h g oo ds or s erv ic es , or i nt en ti on al ly traffi cs or a tt em pt s t o tra ffi c in lab el s, p at ch es , st ic ke rs , wrap pe rs , bad ge s, em bl em s, m ed al li on s, ch arm s, b ox es , con ta in ers , can s, ca se s, h an gt ag s, do cu m en ta ti on , or p ack ag in g o f an y type o r na tu re, kno win g t ha t a co un te rfei t m arkha s b een ap pl ie d t he ret o, t he us e o f whi ch is li ke ly to cau se co nf

us io n, t o c au se m is ta ke , or t o d ecei ve , sh al l, i f an in di vi du al , be f

in edno t m or e th an$2 ,00 0,0 00 or i m pr is on edno t m or e th an10 y ears , or b ot h . . . . Id . See al so § 2 32 0( e)(1 )(A)(i i) ( m arkm us t b e “ id en ti cal with, o r subs ta nt ia ll y in di st in gu is habl e fro m , a m arkreg is te redon th e p rin ci pa l re gi st er i n t he Uni te d St at es Pat en t an d Tra de m arkOffic e an d i n u se ”).

12As the di st ric t co urt re co gn iz ed , Defen da ntco rrec tl y st at es th e law as t o th es e two types of c ig ars ; h owe ve r, Co un t 3 als o c ha rg edDefen da ntwith
co un te rfei ti ng th e Hoyo d e Mo nt erre y cig ar al so pro du cedby G en eral Cig ar Co
. Bec au se ev id en ce was pre se nt edas t o the Hoyo de Mo nt erre y cig ars , th e jury was st il l en ti tl edto reac h ave rd ic t o n C ou nt3 wi th an y qu es ti on of the nu m

be r of ci ga rs im pa ct edgo in g t o s en te nc in g. Fi na ll y , Defen dantass ert edat o ral arg um en t tha t the Gov ern m en t d idno t pr es en t s uf

fic ie ntev id en ce wi thres pe ctto whet he r th e u se was l ik el y “ to cau se co nf us io n.” W e n ot e th atDefen da ntdi d n otrai se th is arg um en t t o t he di stric t
co urt attri al , alt ho ug h t he di st ric t co urt ca refu ll y co ns id eredth e Gov ern m en t’s bu rd enof p ro of

on th is st atut ory

ele m en t. See , e.g., DE15 2, at68 -7 1 (d is tri ct
co urt d is cu ss in g wh attype o f te st im on y wou ldbe requi redto de m on st rat e co nf us io n)
. Si gn ifi can tl y , du rin g t he tri al , all pa rti es ag reed , bas edonou r pr io r pr eced en t, tha t i t i s n otne ces sary to sh ow p ro of

of c on fu si on th ro ug h t he te st im on y of c on su m ers or e xp ert s o r th e ad m is si on of s urve y s. See Uni te d S ta te s v. To rk in gt on , 81 2 F .2d13 47 (11 Cir . 19 87 ). In To rk in gt on , th e d efen da ntwas th ch arg edwith t wo co un ts of v io la ti ng th e Trad em arkCo un te rfei ti ng Act o f 19 84 , th e sa m e st atut e atis su e in th e in st an t m at te r. The d is tri ctco urt h el d t ha t 13§ 2 32 0( d) (1 )(A) re qu ire d ash owi ng th atdi rectpu rch as ers wou ldbe li ke ly

co nf us ed , m is ta ke n o r de cei ve d b y th e al le ge dl y

co un te rfei t g oo ds . Id. at13 49
. Bec au se th ere was anen orm ou s p ric e d iff eren ti al be twee n t he co un te rfei t Ro le x watc he s o ffer edby the de fen da ntan d aut he nt ic Ro le x wat ch es , th e d is tri ctco urt he ldas am at te r of

law tha t i t was un li ke ly tha t d ire ctpu rch as ers wou ldbe
co nf us ed
. W e reject edth is co nc lu si on an d h el d:
se ct io n 2 32 0( d) (1 )(A) d oe s n otrequi re a s ho win g t ha t d ire ctpu rch as ers wou ldbe co nf

us ed , m is take n o r de cei ve d; rathe r, th e se ct io n i s s at is fie d whe re i t i s s ho wn t ha t m em be rs of t he pu rch as in g p ub li c wou ldbe li ke ly to be co nf us ed , mis ta ke n o r de cei ve d. Mo reo ve r, we fin d t ha t thi s l ik el y co nf us io n t es t i nc lu de s the li ke li ho odof c on fu si on in a po st -s al e co nt ex t. Id . W e fu rth er n ot edth atitwas ajury qu es ti onas t o wh ethe r a d ire ctpu rch as er wou ldbe co nf

us ed , m is take n o r de cei ve d. Id . at 1 35 3 n .8. Thu s, we re ve rs edth e di st ric t co urt’s d is m is sa l o f th e in di ct m en t ag ai ns t the de fen da ntby not in g t ha t i n ad di ti on to th e in di ctm en t tha t s etforth each ele m en t o f th e cri m e, “ th e d is tri ct
co urt h adbe fo re i t ev id en ce tha t the all eg ed ly cou nt erfe itwatc he s ar e ex te rn al ly id en ti cal to au th en ti c Ro le x wat ch es an d b ear b ot h t he na m e ‘Rol ex ’ an d t he Ro le x cro wn t rad em arkem

bl em .” Id . at 1 35 4. Se ve ral of o ursi st er ci rcu it s h av e rea ch ed th e sa m e co nc lu si on . See al so Uni te d S ta te s v . Foo te , 41 3 F .3d12 40 (10 Cir
. th 20 05 ) (ex te nd in g app li cat io n b ey on d d ire ctpu rch as ers ); Un it edSta te s v . Hon , 90 4
14F.2 d 8 03 (2dCir . 19 90 ) (s am e); Uni te d S ta te s v . Yamin , 86 8 F .2d13 0 (5 Cir
. th 19 89 ) (s am e); Uni te d S ta te s v . Gant os , 81 7 F .2d41 (8 Cir . 19 87 ) (s am e). th Fu rth erm or e, we rei te rat edin Guerra tha t i t was no t n eces sa ry for a tra de m arkho ld er t o t es ti fy be fo re the jury orth atth e ag en t wh o c on du ct edth e in ve st ig at io n b e qua li fie d a s an ex pe rt i n apa rti cu la r type o f pr oduc t. 2 93 F.3d 12 79 (11 Cir . 20 02 ). “ Inth is cas e, th e jury hadbe ensh own reg is te redde si gn s o f

th th e tr ad em ark s fo r eac h c ig ar, as well as v ari ou s ci ga r labe ls or b an ds pro du cedby
au th or iz edli cen se es . The jury th eref or e h ada va li d b as is forco m pa ris on in de te rm in in g wh ethe r th e d es ig ns were ‘id en ti cal or s ub st an ti al ly ide nt ic al .’ ” Id . at 12 88
. Here, Defe nd an t was ab le to ass ertto th e jury – th ro ug h h is owntes ti m on y , an d M r. Artz ’s, as wel l as th e arg um en ts of h is co un se l –th athe was m erel y
m im ic ki ng Cuba n c ig ar b ran ds . This act iv ity was n otil le ga l, Defe nd an t av erre d t o th e jury, becau se Cuba n t rad em ark s d o n otrece iv e p ro te ct io n i n t he Uni te d S ta te s. The Gov ern m en t ar gu edto th e jury tha t Def en da nt ’s cig ar b ox es were n otrep li cas of Cuban b ran ds , bu t ra th er were co nf us in gl y si m il ar t o t rad em ark s an d a rtwo rk reg is te redby U .S. co rp or at io ns with t he Uni te d S ta te s Pa te ntan d Tra de m ark Offi ce. Numerou s wi tn es se s t es ti fie d abo utth e ap pe aran ce o f th e b ox es an d t he jury hadth e b ox es in th e jury roo m . Accor di ng to it s v erd ic t, the jury ul ti m at el y 15co nc lu de d t ha t Def en da nt ’s cig ar b ox es were l ik el y to cau se co nf

us io n wi th th e Am eri canbra nd s. Defe nd an t d oe s n ot– an d c an no t ar gu e – th atth e jury’ s co nc lu si on is co nt rary to t he weig htof the ev id en ce p res en te d. B. Ju ry Ins truc tio ns W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s re fu sa l t o g iv e a reque st edjury in st ru ct io n fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Un it edSta te s v . Ric ha rd so n, 5 32 F.3d12 79 , 12 89 (11 Cir
. th 20 08 ). A refu sa l t o g iv e a reque st edin stru ct io n i s an ab us e o f di sc ret io n i f: (1 ) th e reque st edin st ru ct io n i s co rrec t, (2 ) th e co urt d idno t ad dr es s t he subs tanc e o f th e in st ru ct io n i n t he ch arg e, an d (3 ) th e fai lu re t o g iv e th e in st ru ct io n s eri ou sl y im pa ire d t he de fen da nt ’s abi li ty to p res en t aneffe ct iv e d efen se . Id. Dur in g t he ch arg e co nf

eren ce, the pa rti es de ba te d wh ethe r itwas n eces sa ry fo r th e co urt t o i ns tru ctth e jury onth e Cuba n e m ba rg o a s wel l as “pa ral le l m ark s.” The co urt u lt im at el y

ga ve th e jury the fol lo win g i ns tru ct io ns : Tit le 18 Uni te d S ta te s C od e, Sect io n 2 32 0( a) m ak es ita Fed eral cri m e o r of

fen se foran y on e to tra ffi c in co un te rfei t g oo ds or s erv ic es . Fo r y outo fin d t he Defen da ntgu il ty of th es e cri m es all eg edin Co un ts 1 t o 3 , y oum

us t b e co nv in cedth atth e g ov ern m en t h as pro ve d on th e d at e al le ge d i n e ach of t he fol lo win g b ey on d areas on ab le do ub t: Fi rs t: Tha t the Defen da nttra ffi ck ed , or a tt em pt edto tra ffi c, in go od s, tha t i s ci gars .

16Seco nd : Tha t s uc h t raff ic ki ng , or a tt em

ptto tra ffi c, was in te nt io na l; Thi rd : Tha t the Defen da ntkn owi ng ly use d aco un te rfei t

m arkon , or i n c on ne ct io n wi th , th os e g oo ds ; an d Fo urth : Tha t the us e o f th e co un te rfei t m ark s was li ke ly to

co nf us e th e p ur ch as in g p ub li c to cau se m is take , or to de cei ve . The l ik el y

co nf us io n t es t i nc lu de s t he li ke li ho odof c on fu si on in a po st -s al e co nt ex t. The term “ tra ffi c” m ean s t o t ran sp ort, tran sf er, o r ot he rwis e di sp os e o f, to an ot he r, fo r co m m on co m m erci al adva nt ag e o r fi na nc ia l ga in
. See DE9 5, at7. The co urt i ns tru ct edth e jury on“ Co un te rfei t M ark ” as : A “ m ark ” is a wor d, n am e, sym bo l, o r de vi ce, o r an y co m bi na ti on th ereo f, us edto id en ti fy an d d is ti ng ui sh go od s an d t o in di cat e th ei r so ur ce. A m arkus edonor i n t he sal e o f go od s i s kn own as atra de m ark . A certi fic at e o f reg is tra ti on fro m th e Uni te d St at es Pat en t an d Tra de m arkOffic e is in it ia l ev id en ce o f th e v al id it y of th e reg is te redm ark , of the own ers hi p o f th e m ark , andof t he own er’s ex cl us iv e ri gh t t o u se th e reg is te redm ark . Thatis , su cha cert ifi cat e is su ffi ci en t p ro of of t he ex is te nc e o f a v al idreg is te red m arkun le ss ou twei gh edby oth er ev id en ce i n t he cas e. A m arkne edno t b e ab so lu te ly ide nt ic al to be co ns id ered co un te rfei t. A “ co un te rfei t m ark ” is a m arkth atis sp ur io us , or n otge nu in e orau th en ti c an d i s i de nt ic al with, o r subs ta nt ia ll y in di st in gu is habl e fro m , a m arkin us e an d re gi st eredforth os e sa m e g oo ds or s erv ic es on th e p rin ci pa l re gi st er i n t he Uni te d S ta te s Pa te ntan d Tra de m ark Offi ce. Inord er fo r th e m arkon th e g oo ds at i ss ue to be ge nu in e, it
17m

us t b e p la cedth ere b y

th e le gi ti m at e o wne r of

th e m arkor wi th th e own er’s au th or iz at io n. Th e g enui ne m arkm us t n oton ly be fed eral ly reg is te red , bu t m

us t al so be in actua l u se at the ti m e o f th e de fen da nt ’s us e o f th atm ark . Fin al ly, a co un te rfei t m arkis a m ark th e u se of wh ic h i s l ik el y to co nf us e th e p ur ch as in g p ub li c. Fo r y outo fin d t ha t the ge nu in e m ark s wer e “ in us e,” the Gov ern m en t m

us t p ro ve , beyon d areas on ab le do ub t, tha t the ge nu in e m ark s wer e actua ll y

be in g u se d dur in g the pe rio d o f th e o ffen se by th e g enui ne m arkho ld er o n o r inco nn ect io n wi th th e g oo ds or se rv ic es forwhi ch th e g enui ne m ark s ar e reg is te red . Evid en ce o f su ch us e m ay , bu t n eedno t, i nc lu de tes ti m on y th atth e m arkap pe ars on ev ery go od ; adve rti se m en t d ep ic ti ng th e m arkan d i ts go od s o r se rv ic es ; o r le ga l ac ti on to en fo rce t rad em arkrig ht s. See i d. at8. The co urt d es cri be d “ Cuba n m ark s” as: Uni te d S ta te s trad em arklaw d oe s n otpro te ctCuba n tra de m ark s. Ho wev er the law p ro hi bi ts act io ns th atde cei ve co ns um ers an d i m

pa cta pr oduc er’s g oo dwi ll th ro ug h t he de cep ti ve an d m is le ad in g u se of p ro te ct edm ark s. Th e Gov ern m en t h as th e bu rd ento pro ve th atth e u se of t he co un te rfei t o f th e p ro te ct edm ark s is li ke ly to co nf

us e th e p ur ch as in g p ub li c. The Go ve rn m en t al so ha s to pro ve th atth e d efen dantin te nt io na ll y de al t i n g oo ds an d kn owi ng ly use d aco un te rfei t o f a p ro te ct edm arkin co nn ect io n wi th th os e g oo ds . The g ov ern m en t d oe s n othave to pro ve th atth e de fen da ntkn ew th e la w. W ha t the go ve rn m en t m

us t p ro ve is th athe in te nt io na ll y

tra ffi ck edin go od s kno win g t ha t the go od s ar e co un te rfei t. See id
. at11 . At Defen da nt ’s reque st , th e co urt s pe ci fic al ly agree d t o a ddth e wor d “pr ot ect ed ” th ro ug ho utth e “ Cuba n m ark s” in st ru ct io n. Atth e ch arg e co nf eren ce, Defe nd an t co nc ed edth atth e co urt’s ad di ti on of t he word“pr ot ect ed ”
18m oo te d h is reque stfora ch arg e o n t he Cuba n e m ba rg o. Se e DE15 8, at13 1- 34
. 2 Bec au se of t hi s co nc es si on be fo re the di st ric t co urt, we d o n otco ns id er an y arg um en ts m ad e b y

Defen da ntwith re sp ectto th e Cuba n e m ba rg o i ns tru ct io n. On ap pe al , Defen da ntarg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n refu si ng to gi ve hi s p ro ffer edin st ru ct io n o n “ pa ral le l m ark s.” Def en da nt ’s arg um en t wi th res pe ctto “pa ral le l m ark s” is pre m is edin hi s b el ie f th atun de r th e Helm s- Bu rto n Act , par al le l m ark s ar e n oten ti tl edto pro te ct io n i n t he Uni te d St at es . W e fo un d abo ve , ho wev er, tha t thi s i s n otanaccu rat e st at em en t o f th e la w. The m ere f

actth atth e tr ad em ark s u se d b y Alt ad is an d t he ot he r vi ct im s i n thi s cas e are “pa ral le l” to m ark s u se d b y Cuba n c om

pa ni es forCuba n c ig ars m ark et ed
ou ts id e th e Uni te d S ta te s d oe s n otm ean th atth e U.S. m ark s re gi st eredby U .S.
co m pa ni es are n otpro te ct ed . Once t hi s d efen se th eo ry is reco gn iz edan d re

jecte d, th e is su e o f jury ins tru ct io ns is m or e rea di ly anal y zed
. Def endant ha d reque sted a c harg e on the Cuban Emba rg o which stated: 2 The Court has de termined a nd instructs you as a matter of law that the sale of Cuban cig ars is illeg al in the United States but not in other countrie s and that trade marks in which Cuba ha s an intere st are not protectableunder United States law. See Appe llant’s Brief, at 11. He also wa nted a c harg e on “I

nvalid Cuban Marks” : In this case the de fenda

nt contends that the a lleg ed counte rfe it mark used on the cig ars wa s invalid as a Cuban tra de mar k. The de fenda

nt has the burde n of provingby

a prepondera

nce of the evidenc e that the a lleg ed counte rfe it mark is a Cuban trade mark. I f you find by

a prepondera

nce of the evidenc e that the a lleg ed counte rfe it mark wa s a Cuban mar

k, your ver dict should be for the defe ndant. I d. 19The co urt d en ie d Def en da nt ’s reque st edin st ru ct io n o n “ pa ral le l m ark s” whi chread : The de fen da ntco nt en ds th atth e al le ge d c ou nt erfe itm ark s ar e pa ral le l m ark s an d tha t the pa ck ag in g o f ci ga rs in [si c] inh eren tl y di st in ct iv e an d i de nt ifi edth e ci ga rs as C ub ancig ars with C ub an m ark s. Th e d efen da ntha s t he bu rd enof p ro vi ng by a prep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce tha t the all eg edco un te rfei t m ark s ar e p aral le l m ark s. Prep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce m ean s t ha t you m us t b e p ers ua de d b y th e ev id en ce tha t i t i s m or e p ro babl y tru e th anno t tru e th atth e co un te rfei t m ark s ar e p aral le l m ark s. If y oufin d b y

a pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce tha t the co un te rfei t m arkis di st in gu is he d fr om th e Uni te d S ta te s p ro te ct ed tra de m ark , y oum

us t fi ndth e d efen da ntno t g ui lt y . See DE1 03
. 3 The co urt d idoff

er, h owe ve r, to gi ve anin st ru ct io n d ire ct ly from th e cas e Defen da ntcit ed– Cu lb ro , 21 3 F . Sup p. 2 d 2 47 – wh ic h p ro vi de d:

“pa ral le l b ran ds ” d ev el op ed , i.e., th e Cuban g ov ern m en t s el ls a Cuba n ci ga r inCubaan d o th er p art s o f th e wor ldun de r th e sa m e ap paren t tra de m arkas a n u nr el at edco m pa ny tha t s el ls a no n- Cuba n c ig ar i n t he U.S. It i s n otth e sa m e tr ad em ark , ho w ev er, a s th e U.S. cig ar s a re so ld under tra demark s w hi ch the ow ners ha d reg is tere d a nd us ed
Def endant ha d also proposed a written instruction on the def inition of parallel 3 trade marks which r ead: The c ourt has dete rmined and instruc ts you as a matter of law that para llel trade marks ar e not protec ted by United States law. In this case pa rallel trade marks mea

ns those marks which the Cuban g overnme nt sells in C uba and other pa rts of the world under the same appa rent tra demar

k as anothe r compa

ny that sells a non-Cuban c iga r in the United States. The y are not the same trade marks. See Appe llant’s Brief, at 10. 20in the Uni ted St at es for the s al e o f thei r ci ga rs pri or to t he

ex pro pri at io n o f the Cub an cig ar co m pa ni es . Id . at 2 56 -5 7 (e m

ph as is ad de d) . Defen dant , ho wev er, wo ul d o nl y ag ree t o t ha t in st ru ct io n i f th e co urt d id no t readth e p orti on in bo ld . See DE15 8, at11 4- 16
. The co urt re fu se d t o g iv e a p art ia l d efi ni ti on bu t o ffer edto Defen da ntth atth e co urt wo ul d c on si de r an y ot he r de fin it io n o f “pa ral le l m ark s” th atDefen da ntco ul d lo cat e. Id . at 1 15 -3 4. Defe nd an t d idno t p ro vi de an y . As we h av e d is cu ss edab ov e, th ere i s n o d is pu te th atth e co nc ep t o f pa ral le l
m ark s ex is ts . Howev er, the factth atm ark s can b e d es cri be d a s “ pa ral le l” do es no t
m ean th atth e m ark s re gi st eredin th e Uni te d S ta te s b y U.S. com pa ni es are n otdu e an y pro te ct io n. Th e Gov ern m en t el ic it edtes ti m on y at t ria l tha t the m ark s u se d b y Alt ad is an d Gen eral Cig ar Co . were trace d t o t ho se us edby the in di vi du al fam il ie s th atlef t Cubaan d c am e to th e Uni te d S ta te s af te r th e Cuba n g ov ern m en t
na ti on al iz edth e ci ga r in du stry . DE152 , at 4 -5 , 38 -3 9. We di sa gr ee wi th Defen da nt ’s ass ert io n t ha t b ecau se on e o f th e Am eri canco m pa ni es ho ld in g t he tra de m ark s i s a s ub si di ary of a co rp or at io n p art ia ll y

own edby the Cuba n go ve rn m en t, the Am eri can co m pa ny woul d n otbe en ti tl edto tra de m arkpro te ct io n un de r Hel m s- Burto n. Furth er, the in st ru ct io ns gi ve n b y th e d is tri ctco urt m ad e it

21cl ear t ha t Cuba n t rad em ark s ar e n otpro te ct edin th e Uni te d S ta te s. Th us , th e jury

was on ly com

pa rin g Def

en dant ’s cig ar b ox es to th e Am eri cantra de m ark s. W e co nc lu de th atDefen da nt ’s pro ffer ed“pa ral le l m ark s” in st ru ct io n was no t a c om pl et e st at em en t o f th e la w bec au se itom it te d apo rti on of t he st at em en t
m ad e b y th e d is tri ctco urt i n C ul br o. Fu rth er, we fi ndth atDefen da ntwas ad equa te ly abl e to arg ue hi s t he ory of d efen se to th e jury with ou t a “ paral le l m ark ” in st ru ct io n. C. Pro se cuto ri al Mis co nduc t/Cl os in g Arg uments

“ Inrev ie win g c la im s o f pr os ecu to ria l m is co nduc t, ‘we m us t as se ss (1) whe th er the ch al le ng edco m m en ts were i m

pr op er; an d (2 ) if

so , whet he r th ey pr ejud ic ia ll y

affe ct edth e subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts of t he de fen da nt .’ ” Uni te d S ta te s v . Mi ran da , 27 9 F ed . App x. 9 50 , 95 1- 52 (11 Cir . 20 08 ) (p er cu ria m) (quo ti ng th Uni te d S ta te s v . Arias -Izqui erd o, 4 49 F.3d11 68 , 11 77 (11 Cir . 20 06 )). As th Defen da nt ’s cou ns el ob

jecte d t o t he co m

m en ts at tria l, the st an da rdof r ev ie w is de
no vo . Uni te d S ta te s v . Bai le y , 12 3 F .3d13 81 , 14 00 (11 Cir . 19 97 ). “ A th de fen da nt ’s subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts are p reju di ci al ly affect edwhen a reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y

ari se s t ha t, b utforth e rem ark s, the ou tc om e o f th e tr ia l wo ul d h av e be endi ffer en t.” Un it edSta te s v . Eckh ard t, 4 66 F.3d93 8, 9 47 (11 Cir . 20 06 ). th

22Init s i ni ti al clo si ng , th e Gov ern m en t ar gu edth atalt ho ug h Def en da ntus ed bo xe s an d l ab el s d es ig ne d t o l oo k l ik e “ Cuba n” cig ars , th e n am es , sym bo ls , and artwork Def

en da ntus edwere i de nt ic al to or s ub st an ti al ly ind is ti ng ui sh ab le fro m th e U.S. tra de m ark s. Defe nd an t’s at to rn ey arg ue d i n h is clo si ng th atco pyin g Cuba n c ig ars an d m ark s was no t a c rime becaus e Cubaha d n o ri gh ts in th e Uni te d St at es . Defen da nt ’s att orne y als o i m pl ie d t ha t Al ta di s U.S.A. was a pupp etof t he Cuba n g ov ern m en t an d t ha t the Cuba n g ov ern m en t was be hi ndAlt ad is U.S.A.’ s reg is tra ti on of m ark s i n t he Uni te d S ta te s an d b eh in d t he pro se cu ti onof Defen da nt . Spe ci fic al ly, Defen da nt ’s cou ns el st at ed : Thi s i s n otab ou t U.S. trad em ark s. Letm e te ll y ouho w y oukn ow th at . Youha ve to an al y ze, l oo k a t the bi g p ic tu re . . . . W ha t i s t he bi g p ic tu re h ere? The bi g p ic tu re i s ea sy. The se gu y s ar e th e li tt le pupp et s o f Alt ad is
. Who is Alt ad is ? Alt ad is is fif ty perce ntbu si ne ss pa rtn er o f th e Cuba n Gov ern m en t. Wha t wer e th ey

lo ok in g fo r? They w ere t ry in g t o fi gu re o uta way aro un d U.S. l aws to fig ur e o utho w th ey co ul d p ro te ctCuban tra de m ark s. Th at ’s real ly wha t thi s i s al l ab ou t. See DE1 51 , at 1 1. Init s re bu tt al clo si ng , th e Gov ern m en t re sp on de d t o d efen se co un se l’s
as se rti on s t ha t Def

en da ntdi d n otco m

m ita cri m e b ecau se Cubaha d n o ri gh ts in th e Uni te d S ta te s. Th e Gov ern m en t ar gu edth atif Def en da nt ’s in te rp ret at io n wer e 23co rrec t, i f a co un try su chas C ub a o r Ven ezu el a d eci de d t o c op y a McDo na ld ’s tra de m ark , th enan y on e in th e Uni te d S ta te s co ul d o pe n aMcDo na ld ’s (witho ut
au th or iz at io n fr om

th e co m pa ny) by co nt en di ng itwas l eg al to do so be cau se he
was jus t co pyin g t he Cuba n o r Ven ezu el anMcDo na ld ’s andno t the U.S. McDo na ld ’s. In res po ns e to de fen se co un se l’s co m m en ts ab ou t Al ta di s U.S.A., th e Gov ern m en t s ta te d t ha t the cas e was no t ab ou t the Cuba n e m ba rg o a ndth atth e jury w ou ldbe rece iv in g n o i ns tru ct io ns on th e Cuban e m ba rg o. Ra th er, the jury
was on ly to d et erm in e whe th er Defe nd an t v io la te d 1 8 U.S.C. § 23 20 (a). Sp eci fic al ly, Mr. Gi lfa rb , th e p ro se cu to r, st at ed : I th in k B ur ge r Kin g u se d t o h av e th e p hr as e, ha ve ity ou r way . The d efen da ntcan no t h av e ithi s way. He can ’t hav e ithi s way becaus e th e arg um en t i s th atif C ub a o r an y

ot he r na ti onde ci de s t o i gn or e ou r la ws ab ou t wh atis pro te ct edth enan y on e h ere in th e Uni te d S ta te s can c op y th at– MR. HERRERA: Object io n. THE COURT: Gro un ds ? MR. HERRERA: In co ns is te ntwith t he law an d fa ct s. THE COURT: Ove rru le d. Whatth e la wy ers say is n otth e la w

no r is itth e fac ts . It’s wh atth ey th in k the fact s are. An d t he law I wi ll gi ve y outh e la w. Youwil l de ci de whatth e fac ts are. MR. GILFARB : Now Cubade ci de s i t’s g oi ng to ha ve a McDo na ld s

– MR. HERRERA: Object io n, Go ld enRu le
. THE COURT: Ove rru le d. MR. GILFARB : The n s om eb od y in Hial eah says I am

go in g t o ha ve a McDo na ld s t oo , so it ’s th e Cuban

24McDo na ld s. Th eny ouhave Hug o C ha ve z who de ci de s h e wan ts a McDo na ld s i n Ven ezu el a – MR. HERRERA: Object io n. Th is is Gol de n R ul e. THE COURT: Ove rru le d. MR. GILFARB : How l on g wi ll th atgo on be fo re U.S. tr ad em ark

la w m ean s n ot hi ng . Thatis th e d efen da ntha vi ng ithi s way. U.S. law wo ul d m ean no th in g i n the en d. Th is de fen dantst ol e wha t Ca st ro co ul dn ’t. Rea ch edin to th e Uni te d S ta te s an d s to le what Cas tro co ul d n ot . St ol e fro m

th es e ex pa tri at es th ei r rep ut at io ns an d th ei r na m es . ThatAlt ad is , S.A., the pa ren t co m pa ny to o ne of t he vi ct im s, o nl y on e o f th e vi ct im s –by the way , if you d eci de to for so m e reas on ig no re Al ta di s as th e v ic ti m whatis th e de fen se to Gene ral Cig ar tha t Al ta di s, S.A. is vi ol at in g t he em

ba rg o b ecau se it ’s a Sp an is h co rp or at io n n otsubjec t t o t he juri sd ic ti on he re tha t ha s a s ub si di ary co m

pa ny tha t i s v ic ti m

to a co m pa ny tha t v io la te s t he em ba rg o? Desp it e th at th e U.S. Gov ern m en t g ran te d t he m pro te ct io n, t he pr ot ect io n o f th e Pat en t an d Tra de m arkOffic e. Tha t d oe sn ’t m ak e se ns e. Ju stbe cau se a co m pa ny th atdo es bu si ne ss he re h as a pa ren t tha t d oe s bu si ne ss with C ub a th atvi ol at es th e em ba rg o. The re i s n otgo in g t o b e anem barg o i ns tru ct io n. Youwil l b e in st ru ct edon th e la w rel ev an t t o t hi s cas e. Ther e’s no em

barg o i ns tru ct io n. See DE1 51 , at 2 0- 22
. W e d o n otfin d t he pro se cu to r’s rem ark s t o b e im pr op er. Thr ou gh ou t the tri al , Defen da nt ’s cou ns el refe rredto th e si tu at io n i n C ub a an d a ccu se d t he Gov ern m en t o f si di ng with F id el Cas tro an d p ro te ct in g C ub antra de m ark s. He 25al so rep eat ed ly argu edth atth e Gov ern m en t was go in g a fte r th e “ li tt le gu y ” an d

pr ot ect in g c om

pa ni es own edby the Cuba n g ov ern m en t. The Gov ern m en t’s
co m m en ts were i n d ire ctres po ns e to Defen dant ’s ass ert io n tha t a g ui lt y ve rd ic t
wou ldbe tan ta m ou ntto supp orti ng th e Cuba n g ov ern m en t. Eve n i f we d idfin d t he co m m en ts to be im

pr op er, we wo ul d n otfin d t ha t th ey pre jud ic ia ll y affe ct edth e subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts of t he de fen da nt . Upo n o bjec ti on of de fen se co un se l, the di st ric t co urt re m in de d t he jury th atth e co m m en ts of the la wy ers refl ectne it he r th e la w no r th e fac ts . Bot h t he Gov ern m en t an d Def en da nt were ab le to pre ss th ei r th eo rie s t o t he jury. The Go ve rn m en t ar gu edth at Defen da ntwas c op y in g t he tra de m ark s o f U.S. co m pa ni es ; Def

en da ntarg ue d h e was co pyin g C ub antra de m ark s wh ic h a re n otaffo rd edpro te ct io n i n the Uni te d St at es . W it h t hi s i ss ue squarel y pre se nt edto th e jury, not hi ng in th e reb ut ta l arg um en t o f th e Gov ern m en t p reju di cedDefen da nt ’s rig htto have th e jury
co ns id er h is th eo ry

of the ev id en ce. We do no t fi ndth ere i s a r eas on ab le pr ob ab il it y

th atbu t fo r th es e rem ark s, the ou tc om e o f th e tr ia l wo ul d h av e b een di ffer en t. II I. Con cl us io n Fo r th e ab ov e-s ta te d re as on s, we AFFI RM Def en da nt ’s con vi ct io ns an d
se nt en ce. 26