...over his Fleur de Lis logo. And he will lose, which is too bad because NC Monte's suck, but may result in a great marketing position for him, as everyone loves the underdog.

I suspect is wasn't just the use of the fleur de lis that pissed off Altadis (Habanos), but rather it was his obvious copy cat marketing of all things Habanos, down to the sticker placement, regional releases, cigar sizes, limited editions, etc.

It could get pretty interesting.

PS

Any copyright or trademark lawyers care to comment?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: cromag,

....and why isn't Cigar Aficionado ALL OVER this story??? The news is over a week old.

IMO Pete Johnson has a good several lines of cigars, some of which I've heard can compete with some Cubans (still searchin for that source so I dont know) and I smoked Marlboros for long enough that I dont know how much to trust Altadis. They are basically "Big Tobacco" and they have good lawyers.

.

I feel as though Habanos/altaldis is in the right here. I mean they did use the logo first but it kind of pisses me off because when i see that logo i think of tatajue not monte. Which is obviously why they are pissed.

is there a link to the story on this?

yes, where is the link? Did a net search and don't see anything

nevermind, just found a link..scroll down to the Tatuaje A review
http://www.acigarsmoker.com/

quote:

Originally posted by BSBONO:
yes, where is the link? Did a net search and don't see anything

I saw this on another board and feel the same way that one of the posters there felt, Pete should counter-sue Altadis for calling what they make cigars. The lawsuit, if true, is silly. I call for a CA Forums boycott on all Altadis products, if there truly is a lawsuit.

Besides, Tats are far superior to any of the crap, yes poo poo crap that Altadis makes.

Pete doesn't need bands... They are kinda cheap looking anyway.

I don't know the history, how can Alt. use the Habanos names anyway?

I enjoy the simplicity of the Tat bands, don't get me wrong, I love the Opus, ESG and San Cristobal bands but the Tats speak for themselves in a different way. All the above are good but Tats are a different image I believe and one of my favorites.

quote:

I saw this on another board and feel the same way that one of the posters there felt, Pete should counter-sue Altadis for calling what they make cigars. The lawsuit, if true, is silly. I call for a CA Forums boycott on all Altadis products, if there truly is a lawsuit.

Don't forget, Altadis has a 50% stake in Habanos SA. I don't know about you, but I kinda think cuban cigars don't suck.

Anyway, Altadis won't win that war. The Fleur de Lis is a ubiquitous symbol that isn't trademarked, nor could it be. It's common place with clothing makers, jewelry designers, and cigar makers as well.

quote:

Originally posted by mkirk76:
Anyway, Altadis won't win that war. The Fleur de Lis is a ubiquitous symbol that isn't trademarked, nor could it be. It's common place with clothing makers, jewelry designers, and cigar makers as well.

Exactly, what are they gonna do next, sue the Saints?

quote:

Originally posted by Presley:

Besides, Tats are far superior to any of the crap, yes poo poo crap that Altadis makes.

Agreed. I created a thread about this awhile back. NC big brands are finito for me.

But I also agree with LiLo somewhat, they did use it first.

quote:

Originally posted by mkirk76:

Don't forget, Altadis has a 50% stake in Habanos SA. I don't know about you, but I kinda think cuban cigars don't suck.

I wasn't aware of that, so I stand corrected, most of their cigars suck.

I can't imagine how Pete could possibly lose a battle over such a widely used symbol, especially with a convoluted as copyright/trademark law is.

Bear

Let's also not forget that the fleur de lis has been associated with the Boy Scouts of America for a long time as well. I'd love to see Altadis go up against them.

How can Altadis sue over the use of a symbol that has been around for ages. Could someone sue over using a cross, a buddha, an eagle, or some other ancient symbol? As long as Pete's fleur is not exactly like Altadis, I think they are wasting their time and money in suing him. What is the professional consensus from our lawyers here?

quote:

Originally posted by Burnie:
How can Altadis sue over the use of a symbol that has been around for ages. Could someone sue over using a cross, a buddha, an eagle, or some other ancient symbol? As long as Pete's fleur is not exactly like Altadis, I think they are wasting their time and money in suing him. What is the professional consensus from our lawyers here?

That's my point. Others can do a much better job explaining this, but basically Altadis would have to establish that Tat is using the symbol intentionally to encroach on their consumers. For instance- the Cohiba knockoffs use nearly identical symbols intentionally to attract consumers who would be familiar with that symbol.

Take another example- if I opened a store that sold similar items as, say, Target and used their "Target" symbol but changed it to blue and called my business (I don't know)... Bullseye, I would clearly be infringing on their rights.

I just, again, don't see how Altadis could possibly make that case, especially since the laws surrounding the issue are so objective.

Bear

Whether or not Altatis has a legitimate claim or not is a moot point. Pete will have to decide if it's worth the $$$ to fight not only for his right to use the symbol, but inevitably he'll be fighting for everybody's right to use the symbol.

In the end, he has great brand recognition with the name "Tatuaje". The symbol won't be worth the $$$$$ to fight.