Case 1:08-cv-00721-RCL Document 136 Filed 08/05/10 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________
)
GUANTANAMERA CIGAR CO., )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 08-0721 (RCL)
)
CORPORACION HABANOS, S.A., )
)
Defendant. )
____________________________________)

ORDER

Upon consideration of plaintiff’s motion [88] for summary judgment, defendant’s cross-

motion [86] for summary judgment, the oppositions and replies thereto, the applicable law, and

the entire record herein, it is hereby

ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. It is further

ORDERED that defendant’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED. It is further

ORDERED that plaintiff show cause within ten (10) days of this filing as to why it

should not be held in civil contempt for violating the Court’s Order [71] Dec. 10, 2009. It is

further

ORDERED that defendant's Motion for Enlargement of Defendant’s Time to Oppose

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [108] is GRANTED, nunc pro tunc. Defendant’s

opposition of May 5, 2010 to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [88] shall be deemed

timely filed. It is further

ORDERED that defendant’s Consent Motion for Enlargement of Defendant’s Time

Reply in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Civil Contempt [115] is GRANTED, nunc pro tunc.

1
 Case 1:08-cv-00721-RCL Document 136 Filed 08/05/10 Page 2 of 4

Defendant’s May 10, 2010 Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment shall be

deemed timely filed. It is further

ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Motion for Enlargement of Time Re: Pending Motions

for Summary Judgment and Defendant’s Motion to Strike Expert Report [122] is GRANTED,

nunc pro tunc in part, and DENIED as moot in part. The parties’ June 12, 2010, Replies in

Support of Motions for Summary Judgment shall be deemed timely filed; extensions of time

related to striking expert testimony are denied as moot. It is further

ORDERED that the parties’ Agreed Motion for Enlargement of Time to File briefs

Related to the Motion to Strike Expert report of Jorge Armenteros [125] is DENIED as moot. It

is further

ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion to File Confidential Documents Under Seal in Support

of its Response to Defendant’s Motion for Contempt [113] is GRANTED, and the documents

identified in the Motion to File under Seal and filed together with plaintiff’s Notice of Filing

Documents Under Seal shall be maintained under seal. It is further

ORDERED that defendant’s Motion to Seal Defendant’s Reply Memorandum in Support

of Motion for Civil Contempt and for Sanctions [121] is GRANTED and defendant’s reply shall

be maintained under seal. It is further

ORDERED that defendant’s Motion to Consent to Enlarge the Page Limit for Its

Memorandum of Points of Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary

Judgment [117] is GRANTED; it is further

ORDERED that defendant’s page limitation for its Memorandum of Points and

Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment shall be enlarged to 50

pages. It is further

2
 Case 1:08-cv-00721-RCL Document 136 Filed 08/05/10 Page 3 of 4

ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Motion to Admit Record Before The Trademark Trial

and Appeal Board [80] is GRANTED. The record before the Board in Opposition No. 91152248,

is hereby admitted, and shall have the same effect as if originally taken and produced in this

action. In connection with the parties’ motions for summary judgment, the parties shall file either

a Joint Appendix or separate appendices of the relevant portions of the administrative record on

the terms as proposed in the Joint Motion. It is further

ORDERED that defendant’s Motion to Strike Expert Report of Jorge Armenteros [120]

and plaintiff’s Request for a Daubert Hearing [127] are DENIED as moot. It is further

ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Payment of Its Expert Witness Fees [124]

is DENIED without prejudice. It is further

ORDERED that plaintiff’s Agreed Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Reply in

Support of Motion to Compel Payment of Expert Witness Fees [134] is GRANTED, nunc pro

tunc. Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Motion to Compel Payment of Expert Witness Fees of July

13, 2010 shall be deemed timely filed. It is further

ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s August 18, 2009

Memorandum Opinion and Order [59] is DENIED. It is further

ORDERED that this case is remanded to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board for

further review consistent with the Court’s Memorandum Opinion of this date, and this Order.

SO ORDERED.

Signed by Royce C. Lamberth, United States District Judge, on August 5, 2010.

3
Case 1:08-cv-00721-RCL Document 136 Filed 08/05/10 Page 4 of 4