By ANA RADELAT

          NEW YORK -- Cuba cannot sell rum in the United States, but an
          American court ruling over Cuba's rights to the Havana Club
          trademark has President Fidel Castro so mad he is threatening to market
          his own brand of "Coca-Cola."

          He's not the only one fuming. So are executives at Pernod Ricard SA,
          the French beverage giant that paid an estimated $50 million six years
          ago to team up with Cuba to produce and export Havana Club rum, the
          island's prize liquor. The European Union has taken up Pernod Ricard's
          cause, and the prospect looms large that rum will soon join bananas,
          airplane engine mufflers and hormone-treated beef in the parade of
          trans-Atlantic trade disputes.

          In fact, with the exception of Bacardi-Martini U.S.A., the U.S. subsidiary
          of Bacardi Ltd., which contends that it holds the rights to the Havana
          Club name, just about everyone seems unhappy with the ruling. The
          ruling, in April, by Federal District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of
          Manhattan, denied trademark rights to Cuba's most famous rum.

          Many American companies, fearful of losing their trademark rights in
          Cuba, are lobbying for the repeal of the law on which the ruling was
          based. Criticism of the legislation is even being heard from some quarters
          in the U.S. Trade Representative's office, the guardian of corporate
          America's global interests.

          The dispute revolves around a provision of last year's federal omnibus
          spending bill known as Section 211. The provision was sponsored by
          Florida's senators, Connie Mack, a Republican, and Bob Graham, a
          Democrat, at the behest of Bacardi Ltd., which is based in the Bahamas
          but has a big presence in southern Florida. It prohibits American courts
          from upholding trademarks "that were used in connection with a business
          or with assets that were confiscated" by the Castro government, unless
          the original owner "expressly consented."

          Bacardi bought the rights to the Havana Club trademark from the original
          owner, the Arechabala family, in 1997, after Pernod Ricard and Cuba
          went to court to stop Bacardi's American unit from selling rum under that
          label. Like the Bacardi family, the Arechabalas went into exile after the
          Castro government nationalized the rum industry in the early 1960s.

          But unlike the Barcardis, the Arechabalas never went back into the liquor
          business, and Pernod Ricard contends they thereby abandoned their
          trademark rights. Presumably, the United States agreed, because the
          Castro government legally registered the brand at the U.S. Patent and
          Trademark Office years ago. Today, Pernod Ricard holds trademark
          rights to the name in 180 countries; the only place they are contested is in
          the United States.

          Judge Scheindlin's decision provoked Castro to rail against America's
          "bald-faced violation of international law" and to threaten to end
          protection for hundreds of American trademarks registered in Cuba.

          "I hope no one complains if one day we begin to produce Coca-Cola,"
          Castro said in a speech in Havana in May. "We might be able to make it
          better," he added, "and on the can we'll put: Cuban Coca-Cola."

          Michael Heltzer, government relations manager at the New York-based
          International Trademark Association, said Castro's comments caused
          concern among some of his American members. He said his group had
          "at no point indicated its support" for Section 211.

          The U.S. Chamber of Commerce was more emphatic. It said it wanted
          Section 211 stricken from the books.

          "It should have been thought through a little more carefully," said John
          Howard, the chamber's director of policy and programs. "Given its
          effects, it should be repealed."

          Despite Washington's longstanding embargo on trade with Cuba,
          hundreds of American companies have registered their brand names in
          Cuba, including McDonald's, Calvin Klein, Gillette, Sara Lee and
          Pepsico. Many are members of the chamber.

          While American companies are grumbling about Section 211, Pernod
          Ricard is shouting. It has begun an energetic campaign to persuade the
          15-nation European Union to challenge the new trademark law at the
          World Trade Organization, the international arbiter of trade disputes.

          Charlotte Hebebrand, an official with the Washington trade office of the
          European Commission, the executive branch of the European Union, said
          the commission would "probably go ahead" with the dispute-resolution
          process. European officials are especially galled because they recently
          dropped a complaint against another American law, the Helms-Burton
          Act, a 1996 measure aimed at punishing foreign investors in Cuba.

          "The matter has come up at every high-level meeting we've had with the
          administration," Ms. Hebebrand said. "The idea now is to put some
          pressure on the United States."

          Charlene Barshefsky, the U.S. trade representative, has refrained from
          commenting on the issue, and a spokeswoman for her office would only
          say that it was "under review by an interagency team." But a memo
          written to Ms. Barshefsky by three members of her staff shortly after
          Section 211 became law concluded that "its language is problematic
          because it violates" America's international trade obligations.

          For all the clamor against it, the law has one powerful defender: Bacardi,
          the world's largest rum producer. Jorge Rodriguez, a spokesman for
          Bacardi, said the measure was not a violation of international law and
          defended Judge Scheindlin's ruling. He said Bacardi had entered into an
          agreement with the Arechabalas, the original owner of the Havana Club
          name, because it wanted to help an old competitor who was "wiped out
          since they were confiscated in 1960. We also liked the brand," he added.

          The rum war did not begin until 1993, after the collapse of the Soviet
          bloc forced Cuba to look for Western investors and Pernod Ricard
          entered the stage. After the French company and Cuba formed their joint
          venture, Havana Club Holdings International, global sales of Havana
          Club quickly soared to more than 1 million cases a year from fewer than
          400,000 cases.

          In 1995, Bacardi began producing its own Havana Club brand in the
          Bahamas, though in tiny quantities. It halted production after Havana
          Club Holdings filed suit, contesting Bacardi's right to do so.

          Pernod Ricard is appealing Judge Scheindlin's ruling, arguing that the new
          American law is both illegal and unfair. "It is exactly as if at the end of a
          soccer game the referee says, 'Okay, guys, I'm sorry, but the rules of this
          game changed while you were playing,"' said Pierre-Marie Chateauneuf,
          Pernod Ricard's general counsel.

          Undeterred, Bacardi says it will seek registration of its Havana Club
          brand at the Patent and Trademark Office and will restart production of
          the rum "as soon as logistically possible."

          But Lynne Beresford, a lawyer at the trademark office, said Bacardi
          faced regulatory as well as legal obstacles. Her agency cannot register a
          trademark that has a "false designation of origin," she noted, and
          Bacardi's Havana Club, which in addition to its name has a picture of
          Havana's famed sea wall, or El Malecon, on the label, may be
          considered an attempt to mislead consumers.

          "We normally would refuse registration for an entity that is geographically
          misdescriptive," Ms. Beresford said.