In the article, the Opus One representative stated that "n our view, is clearly being used on cigars to trade on our reputation," and that Fuente had "effectively appropriated" Opus One's mark. In the very early stages of litigation, some time around November of 1996, a representative of Opus One was interviewed for an article in Cigar Insider, a trade publication of the cigar industry. The two actions were combined when the California action was transferred to this District. Fuente subsequently filed a declaratory judgment action in this Court. On October 2, 1996, Opus One initiated a trademark infringement action against Fuente in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. E.) Opus One alleges that this venture has been halted out of concerns about confusion between an "OPUS ONE" cigar and Fuente's "OPUSX." (Doc.
#1996 opus one license#
A.) Currently, Opus One does not produce, distribute or license its name for use with any cigar, but the company has negotiated with another manufacturer of premium cigars to create an "OPUS ONE" cigar. E.) On June 2, 1995, Opus One filed an application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office to use the "OPUS ONE" mark as to tobacco products. A.) In 1995, Opus One acquired the rights to use the mark "OPUS ONE" with *1450 regards to tobacco products from a German company that was selling pipe tobacco under that name. Opus One is a California general partnership that produces a "premium" red wine whose mark is "OPUS ONE." (Doc. B.) It is disputed whether the "X" in "OPUSX" is properly (or commonly) understood to designate the Roman numeral or the alphabetical character. A.) According to Fuente, the mark has subsequently evolved into "FUENTE FUENTE OPUSX." (Doc. (Hereinafter, the Court shall refer to the two collectively as "Fuente.") In 19, Fuente developed a new cigar that it initially called "FUENTE FUENTE OPUS X." This mark was registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office on July 23, 1996. Fuente & Newman Premium Cigars Ltd., a Florida corporation, is its distributor. is a manufacturer of "premium," handmade cigars, whose principal place of business is the Dominican Republic. In the interim, Opus One also moved to amend to add a specific prayer for damages (Doc. 42, filed July 8, 1997), and both Fuente Cigar Ltd. Concluding that both responses were essentially motions to dismiss, this Court granted each party leave to file a reply to its opponent's response, (Doc. filed a response in opposition to Opus One's Motion to Amend (Doc. 28) and on June 30, 1997, Fuente Cigar Ltd. On May 15, 1997, Opus One filed a response in opposition to Fuente Cigar Ltd.'s Motion to Amend (Doc. 25, filed May 2, 1997) and Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Opus One's Motion to Amend (Doc. This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Fuente Cigar Ltd.'s Motion to Amend (Doc. Sharp, Sharp, Smith & Harrison, P.A., Kalish & Ward, Thomas P. Ward, Hill, Steadman & Simpson, P.C., Chicago, IL, for William M. Guerrant, Jr., Hill, Ward & Henderson, P.A., Tampa, FL, R. Morando, Farella Braun & Martel LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Opus One. Uilkema, Limbach & Limbach L.L.P., San Francisco, CA, John L. Douglas McDonald, Jr., Pettis & McDonald, PA, Tampa, FL, John K. Regan, Hill, Steadman & Simpson, P.C., Chicago, IL, for Fuente Cigar, Ltd., Fuente & Newman Premium Cigars Limited Inc.Ĭ.
OPUS ONE, a California general partnership, Plaintiff,įUENTE CIGAR, LTD., a foreign corporation, and Fuente & Newman Premium Cigars Limited, Inc., a Florida corporation, Defendants. OPUS ONE, a California general partnership, Defendant. FUENTE CIGAR, LTD., a foreign corporation, Plaintiff,