Breweries Settle "Spezi" Trademark Dispute in Favor of Paulaner
In a recent turn of events, the Munich-based Paulaner brewery can continue to call its popular cola-lemonade mix drink "Paulaner Spezi." The Augsburg brewery Riegele withdrew its appeal before the Munich Higher Regional Court, ending their longstanding dispute over the trademark.
After a hearing, it became clear that the court would not entertain Riegele's demand for a license agreement. In light of this, Riegele decided to withdraw its appeal, according to Managing Director Sebastian Priller.
The trademark "Spezi" was registered with the German Patent Office by Riegele in 1956. However, the Paulaner Brewery in Munich began selling its cola-lemonade mix under the name "Paulaner Spezi" in the 1960s. The two breweries then reached an agreement in 1974, which allowed the Munich brewery to continue using the name.
Recently, Riegele sought to negotiate a license agreement, demanding payment in exchange for the right to continue selling "Paulaner Spezi." Priller mentioned that Riegele pays substantial sums each year for the "Spezi" trademark rights. However, the Munich Regional Court sided with Paulaner, citing that the 1974 agreement aimed to resolve disputes once and for all.
Paulaner spokeswoman, Birgit Zacher, expressed satisfaction, stating that the company now has legal certainty. In the previous year, sales of "Paulaner Spezi" reached nearly one million hectoliters, surpassing the beer sales of the Hacker/Pschorr brand.
Additional Insights:
- The Paulaner Brewery is a renowned player in the German beverage industry, known for its contributions to brewing and extensive market presence in Bavaria.
This legal dispute between the two breweries highlights the importance of settling trademark disputes early and the potential implications for brand growth and market share. By securing its use of the "Paulaner Spezi" name, the Paulaner Brewery can continue to tap into its popular soft drink's appeal and strengthen its market position.
[1] [2] [Source: Enrichment data, note that no specific information on the case is available in these sources]
