What's in a name? Plenty it seems, and here is a tale to prove it. Pull up a chair. Pour yourself a drink of Green Man Radler - organically-brewed beer made right here in Dunedin. Only be sure not to refer to it as "Radler". For that trademarked name belongs DB Breweries, a status confirmed in a decision last Thursday when the Intellectual Property Office (Iponz) declined to revoke or cancel its status.
Take a deep draught of the stuff. It ought not blur your thought processes: being a genuine Radler-style beer, at 2.5% it is low in alcohol. Just as well, because the decision by Iponz is befuddling enough. What next, the beer connoisseur might wonder? Will some company claim to own the the name "Pilsner" or "Porter" or "Weissbier" or "Stout" and take action against any upstart craft brewer having the temerity to label its product as such?
This is essentially what happened in 2008 when beer giant DB Breweries took action against Green Man Organic Brewery, saying its use of the name "Radler" was a breach of trademark. The company trademarked the name in 2004 two years after its Monteith's Radler hit the supermarket and liquor-store shelves.
In fact, Radler is a common term in Europe and elsewhere for a style of beer that in this country finds its closest approximation in the descriptive term "shandy". Generally, the genuine article will have an alcohol content of about 1-2%, so those same beer connoisseurs might have reason for further argument with DB over the exclusive deployment of the name: Monteith's Radler is a 5% alcohol beer, and thus will differ markedly from the style as it is commonly known elsewhere in the world.
Being a small craft brewer Green Man did not have the funds to challenge DB over the naming issue and so relabelled its "Radler" Green Man Cyclist.
Then in 2009, the Society of Beer Advocates (Soba), took up the cause and applied to have the trademark revoked. Its argument was that it was not possible to trademark a generic style of beer, but Iponz disagreed and delivered its decision to the contrary on the basis that the term "radler" was not known as a descriptive term in New Zealand in 2004 when the trademark was granted.
This seems an offence against common sense and logic. Should, for example, a winery applying for a trademark for a dessert-style wine such as "ice wine" be granted it on the basis it is little known in this country? And just because it was little known in 2004 does not mean that remains the case. It is now known to Iponz and most brewers precisely what "radler" means, so should not the implicit wrong be righted?
Monteith's Radler has now had exclusive use of the term for nine years. It cannot be faulted for having decided to name its beer thus - even if the beer it describes contravenes the nature of the generic style to which it refers - and it is understandable that it might feel a need to protect its brand.
Following the decision the company was quick to point out that it did not seek to prevent the use or adoption of different beer styles by competitors. "Our trademark has never stopped shandy or lemon or lime-flavoured beverages being made by local brewers under their own brand name," a company spokesperson said.
But that trademarks are allowed to extend to such general "styles" ultimately undermines the concept of and confidence in such a process. Having been challenged on the matter, DB Breweries would have done its own image and that of its specialty beers a great deal more good if it had had the good grace to withdraw its objections.
Radler will only ever comprise a minute proportion of the overall beer market - and in the case of the tiny craft brewer Green Man, intent on making a genuine radler-style beverage for the local market, the competition would likely have proven to be very small beer indeed. Like a long slow draught of radler, a little magnanimity on the part of DB might have gone a long way.
