Bacardi & Company Limited and Bacardi USA have lost their latest appeal over the Havana Club trademark after the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the US Patent and Trademark Office’s renewal of Cubaexport’s registration.
The published decision in Bacardi & Co. Ltd. v. U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, No. 25-1355, issued on 16 June 2026, affirmed a judgment from the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
Judge Julius Richardson wrote the opinion, joined by Judges Paul Niemeyer and Allison Jones Rushing, concluding that the USPTO acted within its statutory authority when it accepted the renewal filing of Empresa Cubana Exportadora de Alimentos y Productos Varios, known as Cubaexport.
The dispute turns on a payment Cubaexport submitted in December 2005. At the time, the Cuban state-owned company required a specific licence from the US Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control because the Cuban Assets Control Regulations restricted transactions involving Cuban entities. OFAC initially refused authorisation, leading the USPTO to reject the renewal and refund the fee.
A different result followed in 2016, when OFAC issued a licence expressly authorising transactions connected with Cubaexport’s 2005 filing and payment. USPTO Director John A. Squires was the named federal defendant on appeal, although earlier agency officials made the underlying decision. The Fourth Circuit held that the licence validated the original payment and removed the only legal obstacle preventing renewal of the mark.
Bacardi argued that the agency exceeded its powers under the Lanham Act and acted arbitrarily and capriciously under the Administrative Procedure Act by approving the renewal years after the statutory deadline. The court rejected both arguments, finding that the agency had drawn a rational connection between the OFAC licence and its conclusion that the payment was effective from December 2005.
The ruling followed earlier proceedings before District Judge Leonie Brinkema, who granted summary judgment to the USPTO and Cubaexport after the Fourth Circuit had previously revived Bacardi’s challenge.
Covington & Burling and Kelley Drye & Warren represented Bacardi, while Debevoise & Plimpton represented Cubaexport. The US Department of Justice appeared for the USPTO and Squires.
The decision is significant for trademark and administrative law practitioners because it confirms that a later sanctions licence can alter the legal status of an earlier transaction where the authorisation expressly reaches past conduct. In-house counsel managing international brand portfolios should also treat sanctions clearance, filing deadlines and agency review as interconnected issues rather than separate compliance exercises.
Law firms advising clients with assets or counterparties in sanctioned jurisdictions may now place greater emphasis on the precise wording and retrospective reach of OFAC licences. The judgment also reinforces the need to preserve administrative objections early, as Bacardi’s challenge to the agency’s delay was treated as forfeited.