Answer and Aff Def FINAL

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICEBEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

In the Matter of Trademark Registration No. 2,900,059Registered: November 2, 2004Mark: HAVANA SUNRISE __________________________________________ CORPORACION HABANOS, S.A., and )EMPRESA CUBANA DEL TOBACCO, )d/b/a CUBATABACO, )) Cancellation No.: 92051672Petitioners, ))v. ))INTER-AMERICA CIGAR COMPANY, ))Registrant. ) __________________________________________)

REGISTRANT'S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

COMES NOW, Registrant through undersigned counsel and files its Answer andAffirmative Defense to the Petition to Cancel as follows:1.

Admitted.2.

Registrant is without sufficient information of the allegations of paragraph 2 andtherefore denies same.3.

Admitted.4.

Registrant is aware that Petitioner appears to own U.S. Registration No. 2,177,837 but is without sufficient information about Petitioner's use of the "mark" throughout the world.Further, Registrant denies any implication that the ownership of the U.S. Registration is valid.5.

Registrant admits that the "mark" has appeared in United States and international publications. Registrant believes that the use of the "mark" in United States publications is aviolation of the trade embargo and that the advertisements induce persons subject to U.S.

jurisdiction to violate the embargo laws. Specifically, US consumers, upon seeing theadvertisements, seek and purchase illegal Cuban cigars via the Internet. For instance,www.smokemag.com a US based magazine has a link to a website that allows US consumers toillegally purchase Cuban cigars for delivery into the US.6.

Most of the allegations in paragraph 6 are admitted in the general sense.Registrant is not aware of the extent of such "trade, marketing, and advertising." Registrant iswithout sufficient information regarding the last part of paragraph 6, namely, the allegation aboutPetitioners’ emphasis "that its cigars are made in Cuba from 100% Cuban-grown tobacco ..." Assuch, without sufficient information, Registrant denies same.7.

Registrant is aware that Petitioner appears to own the registrations identified, butdenies any implication that the ownership of the US Registrations are valid. Further, Registrantdenies any implication that the term "HABANO" in the Registrations is fully protectable in somuch as at least one of the Petitioners is currently experiencing extreme difficulty in obtaining a"certification mark" for "HABANOS" at the USPTO. See Application Serial No. 77/157,193.8.

Registrant incorporates response to paragraph 5.9.

Registrant is aware of the pendency of Petitioner Cubatabaco's application for registration of "HABANOS", but denies any characterization that "the mark certifies" anythingin so much as the application is still pending. In fact, the file history of the application suggeststhat USPTO will ultimately deny the application as the mark does not operate as a "certificationmark" and that the mark is geographically descriptive. In fact, the file history of this applicationworks against Petitioners for all of its litigation (federal and USPTO) wherein it has broughtclaims against innocent trademark owners. The file history of the application also supportsRegistrant's affirmative defenses of "unclean hands" and "laches."

10.

Denied.11.

Denied. Petitioner's own marketing materials will demonstrate that this allegationis false and was created in response to litigation in Corporacion Habanos, S.A. v. GuantanameraCigars and the pending appeal Guantanamera Cigars v. Corporacion Habanos, S.A.12.

Registrant admits knowledge of that case, but denies any implication that theexistence of that case has any bearing on this case.13.

Registrant admits knowledge of the regulations, but sets forth that it also hasknowledge that litigation/appeal is pending in Guantanamera v. Corporacion Habanos whereinthe standing provision is being challenged.14.

Admitted.15.

Registrant admits the contents of the file history, but denies any implication thatthe file history of ten years ago has any bearing on this case.16.

Registrant admits the contents of the file history, but denies any implication thatthe file history of ten years ago has any bearing on this case.17.

Registrant admits the contents of the file history, but denies any implication thatthe file history of ten years ago has any bearing on this case18.

Registrant admits the contents of the file history, but denies any implication thatthe file history of ten years ago has any bearing on this case.19.

Registrant admits the contents of the file history, but denies any implication thatthe file history of ten years ago has any bearing on this case.20.

Registrant admits the contents of the file history, but denies any implication thatthe file history of ten years ago has any bearing on this case.