[357]

To be fair, I don't think LCDH was the official distributor of all Cuban cigars before the embargo. I am young and I don't know it for fact, but I would guess that the Cuban government created it as their means of distribution. Meaning that LCDH was not a privatly owned enterprise stolen via nationalization. I understand the Cigar brands were, but that is not at issue in this case. I agree with Greg's sentiment. If I were a judge presiding over this case, I would take as much of the history into account as I could.

I think they do have a legal claim to LCDH if it was not stolen. But then the argument remains that the two names are different. One means house of Habano (cuban cigars), while the other means house of Havana (a city).

The argument could be made that no government has the right to own a private (for profit) business. I know it happens, but I do not believe it is legal under our law.