Radler - the story unfolds

[Geoff Griggs]

This is quite amazing. See attached file (you may need to download it and open it with Adobe Reader)

The sooner this lunacy is challenged and defeated the better!

[Ralph]

What a load of bollocks. Their beer is pretty crap and so I did not drink it unless at a bar with no other decisions... but now I will make sure I dont drink it at all.

[Reviled]

"unless at a bar with no other decisions..."

The other decision is to drink wine/spirits/water instead of DB crap!! So dont say you didnt have options ;o)

[Richard Jack]

And even better is to not drink at bars without options!

[Dai]

From the Scoop.co.nz article "...(DB) decision to trade mark ‘Radler’ in 2003 has been upheld by the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ)".  -This is not too suprising, is it?  Seeing as IPONZ approved the DB application to trademark the term in the first place.

 

Also from the article, "...“We didn’t do it to prevent competition or restrict consumers’ access to different types of beer products”.." -Yes you did, you sack of turds. You would be more than happy for all the other breweries to go out of business.

 

Their arrogance makes me so mad.

[Subrew]

I normally just lurk arround the forum but the crazyness means even I will post :-)

 

The Herald reported "Costs were awarded to DB but it won't be seeking them from its smaller competitors" An olive branch? or a last ditch attempt not to come out of this looking like complete bastards?... Does this save the Breweries and SOBA from bankruptcy?

 

[Chris Banks]

Unbeleivable - this reminds me of a song I enjoy....

Theives,theives and liars...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiLPpsqhzO8&feature=related

[Greig McGill]

Perhaps a bit of both. I've been laying off laying into DB. Am I upset and saddened? Yes, but to be blunt, as soon as the case became about SOBA having to show Radler was commonly known in 2003, well, I knew it wasn't going to go well. Up until that point, we were extremely confident, as it was an established fact that DB knew very well what a Radler was, and took advantage of the ignorance here to TM that term. Bad law, bad IPONZ, and dodgy DB for taking advantage. BUT! The terrible part is that no amount of calling DB names will fix the bad law and IPONZ incompetence. If it weren't DB, it might be some other company. DB are the symptom, IPONZ are the problem.

[craig rothwell]

I've uploaded the decision for all to read.

[Rhyno]

This part really winds me up

 

After careful consideration of the evidence, I am of the opinion that the applicant has not
established that RADLER had any meaning whatsoever to consumers at the application date
and, as such, has not satisfied its onus of proof. The evidence put forward in support of this
assertion is not sufficient to establish that RADLER was a generic term in New Zealand at the
application date.

 

I am now in need of a stiff drink, sadly I just don't think a Radler Shandy is going to cut it, might need to head for the top shelf..............

[Al Witham]

Having read that decision, the problem seems to be proving that in 2003, when the tade mark was registered, the term radler was understood by the general public in New Zealand as a style of beer. Some beer enthusiasts and people who have travelled to Germany may have been aware of it, but the public at large didn't, or at least there wasn't enough evidence to prove that it did. I must admit I'd never heard of Radler til this case arose and I'm certainly not alone.

From what thedecision says, the law seems to confine the issue to terms generally understood by the public in New Zealand, and not to well established overseas terms. As we all know most NZers don't even know the correct technical distinction between an ale and a lager, let alone what a radler is. And let's not forget this is the country where Tui can pass off it's sweet brown lollywater lager as India Pale Ale.

I don't know enough about the case law in this area to say whether the decision was legally correct in that regard, but the law is pretty inadequate if it is correct. We live in an interconnected world now. This opens up the door for anyone to trademark any term that is well established overseas but not known here - types of wine, cheese, obscure beer styles, you name it. Then what happens when some-one wants to import that product? If anyone wants to import a genuine radler from Germany how are they supposed to do that without infringing DB's trade mark? Cross out "Radler" with a crayon on every lable?

There needs to be some legal recognition of terms that are well understood and established in their own country of origin and regarded as "technically correct" by specialists.

Whether the decision was correct or not, DB was reprehensible in its cynical trade marking of radler. At the very least they could have used the term to describe a genuine radler style beer and not some tarted up bog standard lager.

[Greig McGill]

That's exactly it in a nutshell Al.

[Mark]

There's no way in the world IPONZ (the real criminals here) were going to reverse their decision - no govt department would admit to that much incompetence. You only have to look at the leaky building saga to realise how this case was going to end. A very sad (but predictable) outcome.