Empresa Cubana Exportadora De Alimentos Y Productos Varios v. United States Department of Treasury
638 F.3d 794
D.C. Cir.2011Background
- Trading with the Enemy Act authorizes presidential embargoes; Cuban Assets Control Regulations (CACR) prohibit most US-Cuba transactions, with exceptions revocable at any time.
- In 1963 CACR included an exception allowing Cuban-affiliated entities to register and renew US trademarks; Cubaexport registered HAVANA CLUB in 1976 and renewed in 1996.
- In 1998 Congress amended to bar renewals of marks tied to confiscated assets; Omnibus Act §211 cross-referenced 31 C.F.R. §515.527; Cubaexport sought renewal in 2006 but OFAC denied.
- Cubaexport sued, challenging retroactive application and due process/APA issues; district court granted summary judgment for government.
- The DC Circuit held the 1998 Act bars renewals as well as new registrations, no retroactivity because no vested right to perpetual renewal, and the Act is rationally related to legitimate government interests; district court judgment affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 1998 Act bars renewal of pre-1998 trademarks | Cubaexport argues only new registrations barred | OFAC and government argue renewals barred by text | Bar includes renewals as to pre-1998 marks |
| Application of the presumption against retroactivity | Cubaexport had a vested right to renewal | No vested right due to revocable exception | Presumption does not apply; no vested right to perpetual renewal |
| Substantive due process challenge to retroactive renewal ban | Renewal ban violates due process | Law rationally related to government interests | Act is rationally related to legitimate government interests; no due process violation |
| Administrative Procedure Act notice/hearing requirements | OFAC denied renewal without proper notice/hearing | Cubaexport received notice and opportunity to be heard; no APA violation | No APA violation; procedures satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales, 548 U.S. 30 (U.S. 2006) (statutes retroactive effects depend on vested rights and rights possessed)
- Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (U.S. 1994) (presumption against retroactivity; vested rights concept)
- Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654 (U.S. 1981) (recognizes retroactivity and vested rights considerations)
- INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (U.S. 2001) (retroactivity and due process considerations in immigration context)
- Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel, 524 U.S. 498 (U.S. 1998) (due process and regulatory takings-like considerations in retroactivity)
- Landgraf, supra, 511 U.S. 244 (U.S. 1994) (foundational retroactivity framework cited throughout)
- Havana Club Holding S.A. v. Galleon S.A., 203 F.3d 116 (2d Cir. 2000) ( Second Circuit discussion on section 211 retroactivity)
- Republic of Austria v. Altmann, 541 U.S. 677 (U.S. 2004) (retroactivity and vested rights doctrine)
- Celtronix Telemetry, Inc. v. FCC, 272 F.3d 585 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (illustrates limits of vested rights concept in licensing)