Even though most global breweries kill the essential elements that give historic beer provenance, I understand what they mean when they say a beer has it. I also understand that a beer can be said to have “an authentic Czech taste”. But what exactly is a beer’s genuine and distinctive proposition?
Viewing entries in
Dodgy Beer Stuff
It’s been a while since I’ve posted to BeerMatt and there are a lot of reasons for that, mainly I’ve been flat out. But I just received my “What’s Brewing” newsletter from my old friends DB Breweries (you can read about them here, here, here and here.) and, there’s nothing like low-carb beer to get me writing. What caught my eye was the headline, “Health conscious beer increases popularity.”
Why this struck me is that I remember earlier this year an Australian academic caused a kerfuffle when he suggested that low-carb beers are an “insidious health risk” because they are marketed as a healthy option and may actually encourage people to drink more.
“Nooooooo,” howled the brewing industry when this claim was made. “We don’t market these beers as being healthy, we’re not allowed to do that.”
“ ‘Low carb’ is just a statement of fact, there’s nothing on the bottle to suggest that the beers are healthy.”
But then in their newsletter, DB Breweries are calling it a ‘health conscious beer’.
Read the whole thing and tell me if you’re left with the impression that this is beer is healthier for you. It never actually says that and I am sure that DB Breweries have had a team of lawyers go over the wording of the and to make sure that it doesn’t actually cross the line – but its toes are right up on the line and its shadow extends three feet across it.
Look closely and it’s like one of the old Mad Magazine fold-ins, make “A” meet “B” and something else emerges.
The key elements are:
- It’s a health conscious beer
- It's aim is not to add to growing beer bellies
- It is brewed 33% longer than standard beer to remove unwanted sugars and reduce the beer’s level of carbohydrates
- The beer is meeting a growing consumer demand among New Zealanders who are increasingly conscious of the way they look and feel
- “More and more Kiwis love beer but naturally they’re not so fond of beer bellies!” “Export 33 is full strength, full flavour and low carb so now you can enjoy beer that is less filling without a taste trade-off.”
The last is the clincher. Notice how cleverly the first and second sentences of the last point are non sequiturs. It looks like they logically follow, but they don’t. “Kiwis don’t want beer bellies”. “Our beer is low-carb and less filling.” The latter doesn’t actually relate to the former, and DB can’t be said to be saying their beer is healthy, although the objective is quite clearly to make the connection between low-carbs and avoiding a beer belly – or else, why put out the media release?
In fact, according to DB’s own website, the difference in kilojoules (the energy provided by the alcohol and carbs in the beer that, if unused by the body, causes weight gain) between this ‘health conscious beer’ (425 kilojoules) and DB Draught (462) is 37 kilojoules or roughly half of one percent of a daily intake of 8000 kilojoules. A mouthful of your second bottle and you’ve consumed the same calories as their regular draught beer. The difference is the same is two rice crackers – the plain, not flavoured version.
Incidentally, I would burn 215 kilojoules doing 10 minutes of light gardening.
As ever, if you enjoy Export 33 - or any other beer for its flavour – drink up and enjoy, that’s the whole purpose of beer after all. But if you drink Export 33 because you’re trying to avoid a beer gut or you consider it to be a ‘health conscious beer’, you are every bit as gullible as DB Breweries hope you are.
Oh, and send me your bank account details – I have US$5,000,000 that we can split….
I find myself getting cranky a lot these days. I recently turned forty and I hope my crankiness is not due to getting old, but I can’t think what else it could be. I know that it’s not because I’m turning into a wowser, because the precise reason I’m getting cranky is that I WANT to drink. As I have said often, I love beer. I love to drink it. I want to drink the beers that I love when I want to, where I want to and how I want to.
I don’t want to be made to drink beer in plastic cups, or only before 10pm, or only drink beer with less that 4 per cent alcohol.
I want to drink a beer and not have it labelled with pictures of withered and spotty livers, or pictures of bleeding bodies littered around a car smashed by a drunk driver.
I want to be able to drink a beer and not to have to wait until the children are in bed and then sneak out to the back yard for a quick beer and then hide the bottle. Hell, I want my daughters to get the same pleasure out of pouring a beer properly for their hard-to-please dad that I did when I was growing up. Actually, I even want to be able to say that previous sentence without being accused of modelling unhealthy alcohol use and getting dragged into Children’s Services to explain myself.
Because of all of this I wrote an article for The Punch arguing the thesis that:
- Times are changing, the levels of alcohol consumption that are considered healthy are lowering and community attitudes to alcohol are changing too.
- What are considered the visible effects of alcohol – street violence and alcohol induced crime, all grouped under the heading ‘binge-drinking’ - are increasingly becoming hysterical front page fodder for the media.
- The hysteria will force governments to act or at least be seen to act to quickly solve what is a problem developed over a generation. When government acts in this way it acts badly.
- The upshot will be that people who enjoy beer (or wine or spirits) and do so responsibly will be subject to the same ridiculous “anti alcohol” rules and restrictions as the relatively small but visible problem group.
As a result I took a shot at the trend amongst the big breweries to chase the 18 –30 market, raised on fruit juice and sweet soft drinks, that are moving away from “bitter” beer (i.e. most beers) and opting instead for sweetened alcopops. The result is that brewers have gradually been lowering the body and bitterness of new beers to try and attract this demographic. Of course, one of the attractions of these beers is that they are “sessionable” – marketing speak for there being no flavour to leave you feeling like you’ve had enough to drink, no matter how many you have. (Ironically, they also tend to use the description “thirst-quenching” and “satisfying” even though the beers are designed not to quench or sate a thirst - the brewers don’t want you stopping after just one or two.)
Despite the above, one thing that can be said for these beers is that they have also been edging down on their alcohol content. Even XXXX’s beer-like Summer Bright Lager is “full-strength” at 4.2%.
While I think these beers pander to a certain type of drinker, they oddly do it in a sort of semi-responsible way…if that’s possible. And that’s exactly why someone should slap Bitch Beer before they ruin it for the rest of us.
This is a beer that has been designed to fill a gap in the market that didn’t need filling – the market for higher alcohol, lower flavoured beers. Their marketing basically brags about being brewed for effect, unashamedly chasing the market that is in the anti-alcohol crosshairs – young people who drink for effect.
Despite the compulsory, but feeble, ‘Bitch is potent stuff. Please drink responsibly’ the rest of the marketing spiel is a single-entendre.
Why BITCH? Simply because we'd had a guts full of beers made for old men. And BITCH embodied our non-conformist, play hard attitude to life.
Sure, we could have brewed it with less alcohol. And we probably could have made it not taste as good, but then we'd be just like the sh*t loads of ordinary beers made for old men that are already out there.
Packing 6.0% alcohol, it has a bit of kick. The extra alcohol adds a slightly sweet flavour. Unlike many high alcohol beers, BITCH is an unexpectedly fresh, easy drinking Aussie beer.
Swigged extra cold straight from the bottle, it's crisp, clean and gob-smackingly refreshing. Like a Mexican beer, you can add a slice of lemon or lime to put a twist on the flavour. Goes really well with food, or without food, which makes it perfect for every occasion, or not occasion.
This is basically just a malt liquor.
Again, it’s not a wowser thing. As I write this, I have a glass of Flying Dog Barley Wine beside me weighing in at 10 per cent…but it has so much flavour that I’ll probably have written another 1000 words before the glass is empty. (And it is satisfying, I won’t want another.)
This sort of cynical-half-smart-marketing-concept-cash in-contract-brewed (not that there’s anything wrong with contract brewing as a rule) garbage only hurts the beer industry and, I fear, will end up making it harder for people who want to drink beer (not just consume alcohol) to enjoy it. It will tar all higher alcohol beers with the same brush. The hysteria around BrewDog’s Tokyo shows that when it comes to a good frenzy, logic and facts will not calm things down (even if the frenzy was probably self-generated). The big brewers are already shy of putting out higher alcohol beers, even from their craft arms, lest there be public outcry. With branding and marketing like this on a product designed for one thing, these clowns are just painting a huge target on the back of all beer and the rest of the industry should call code red. Failing that, bars that stock it are pretty much signalling that they’re high risk and should start ordering the plastic cups and extra security now as well as putting the lawyers on stand-by.
And don’t get me started on Skinny Bitch, their planned low carb offering…
It's fine to have an opinion about beer and write about it, but a few beer writers write with authority. Roger Protz is one that does.
Read this and think of it whenever you hear of a brewery being bought by a beer maker promising not to make changes...
Update...
And then I came across this earlier post.
Thanks to Geoff Griggs for just updating me on the latest in the Monteith's trademark saga. DB Breweries has cancelled the registration of its saison trademark, but not radler. The full media release is below, but it comes down to 'we're not using saison so will relinquish it, but we're using radler and so we won't relinquish that'.
Interestingly, even in their own media release they refer to it as 'Monteith's Radler' rather than just Radler, the former being the brand name they should have registered - as it is a brand name, radler is a style. If the term 'radler' was so distinctive to Monteith's that it needs to be trademarked to protect their investment, you might have thought they wouldn't need the qualifier.
Still, congratulations to DB Breweries for taking this step. Hopefully they will relinquish the radler trademark too before it gets too hot to really enjoy the Monteith's Winter Ale that's sitting impatiently in my cellar since the boycott.
Media Statement
September 2009
DB CANCELS SAISON TRADEMARK
DB Breweries is in the process of cancelling the registration of its Saison trademark with the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ). The company has held the trademark since April 2002.
DB Breweries’ general manager marketing Clare Morgan says the decision to cancel the trademark was a logical one given the company hasn’t produced Saison for a considerable time.
“We haven’t brewed Monteith's Saison for six years and we have no intention of re-launching it to the market as it no longer fits our current Monteith’s portfolio. The brand was very well received when it was first launched but we ceased production in 2003.”
Clare Morgan says the cancellation of the Saison trademark has no bearing on the company’s ‘Radler’ trademark.
“Monteith’s Radler has been in the market for nearly 10 years and is one of our most popular variants. Our investment over this time has been substantial and reflects our ongoing commitment to its longevity and success.”
ENDS
Roger Protz just passed me a link to fuller coverage of the Keineken story. Judging by the number of hits that this blog has received from searches for 'Keineken' and "no Heineken", I think Conrad Engler - who is quoted in the story - is exactly right. Heineken has scored an own goal with their legal action. Of course, Heineken International N.V. owns DB Breweries of New Zealand (jointly with Fraser and Neave Limited of Singapore), who own Monteith's so rapid and aggressive defences of trademarks seems to be a part of the corporate culture.
Beer BrawlHeineken not Amused by Swiss 'Keineken' Campaign
Heineken has gone to court to stop a local Swiss group from distributing a spoof brand called Keineken (No Heineken). Local beer fans decided to launch the brew in protest at the Dutch brewer's increasing dominance of the Swiss beer market.
A judge in the Swiss canton Obwalden has ordered a supply of 1,200 Keineken bottles and matching glasses confiscated after Heineken filed a complaint for trademark infringement.
The Keineken ('Kein Heineken' or No Heineken) campaign is in response to recent acquisitions by the Dutch beer giant on the Swiss beer market. A year ago Heineken acquired the Swiss brewer Eichhof from Lucerne. According to Conrad Engler of the Keineken campaign, this meant that "the last big independent Swiss brewer ended up in foreign hands."
Eight years ago, when Carlsberg took over the Feldschlösschen brewery in Basel, local beer aficionados founded the Unser Bier (Our Beer) brewery in the same city. The Keineken campaign in Lucerne was inspired by this.
On Aug. 19 Keineken deposited the Keineken trademark with the Swiss patent bureau and had Unser Bier brew up a supply of Keineken beer. But before the 120 Keineken members could even taste the beer, the police had already sealed the lot.
The small scope of the Keineken campaign is no argument, said a Heineken spokesperson. "We see this as trademark infringement and we filed a complaint accordingly."
'Heineken Scored an Own Goal'
The speed with which Heineken acted took the Keineken activists by surprise. "On Friday morning we sent out a press release about Keineken and four hours later Heineken's lawyers were on the phone," said Engler. "They demanded an immediate halt to the distribution of Keineken and a withdrawal of the trademark."
Keineken said it was willing to halt the sale of Keineken until the trademark was processed, but Heineken was not appeased and went to court instead. That same night the police entered Engler's garage to seal the Keineken supply.
As a result there was no Keineken beer at a party on Saturday to commemorate the first anniversary of Heineken's acquisition of Eichhof. Instead the guests drank Unser Bier.
"As a precaution we blacked out the Keineken name on the t-shirts and flags we had made," said Engler. A good thing because the police came by later to check for further trademark infringement.
The judge is expected to take several weeks to reach a final verdict. Heineken is confident it will win the case, a spokesperson said.
But Engler expects to get the last laugh. "Heineken scored an own goal with their legal action," he said. "The media attention has brought us dozens of new members. Our goal -- to have an Engelberger Klosterbräu by 2012 -- has now come just a bit loser. With or without Keineken."
It's probably because they "develop their portfolio of brands" rather than "brew beer" that makes the multinational malt-derived alcohol companies such a humourless bunch, but this is pretty heavy-handed and petty even by their standards.
Heineken cracks down on tiny Swiss "Keineken"(AP) – 10 hours ago
AMSTERDAM — Swiss police have seized 1,000 bottles of locally made "Keineken" beer after the Dutch beer giant Heineken NV complained its brand was being infringed.
The name "Keineken" appears to be a pun in German meaning "No Heineken."
Heineken spokesman Jeroen Breuer said Tuesday a judge in the Swiss canton of Obwalden ordered police to seize the brew after agreeing Keineken infringed the Heineken brand.
Breuer said Heineken doesn't consider the size of its opponents when its brand is being misused.
"Whether the name is a joke or a way of getting publicity — those are questions for them to answer," he said.
A note on Keineken's Web site complains that foreign companies have "swallowed" all Switzerland's independent brewers.
"Our name says it all: Keineken."
While I'm at it with Heineken, what is it with this ad:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-NfrBgYIEQ]
Apart from creeping me out, I'm not quite sure what it says about their beer...or about women. I'm gratified to see that I'm not alone.
At least Fosters do make truly great ads.
And before I finish with Heineken, these are an interesting read too...
Update
The International Beer Club has just issued a clarification (??) about their newsletter entry reproduced below. I have included this first to make sure that their apology is read...As I said in my initial post, no one else I spoke to reported the same conditions...it seems that they were never made. Still, apart from the deletions, the comments on Crown itself are still pretty relevant...
Shame on us!
Unfortunately during the editing process (and perhaps caught up in the spirit of the name and shame), some of last weeks newsletter ended up on the cutting room floor, and some of the intended messages were "lost in translation", and subsequently what ended up in your inbox was quite different (or converse) to what was intended. We'd like to clarify a few of the finer points:
As written, the statement "[Ambassador] is not available to bottlestores without a purchase of 5 pallets of Crown Lager" is false. This was only requested of some small independent stores that were not already selling a substantial volume of the beer. We apologise to Fosters for the mistake, and hope that in the future better communication (both with Fosters and within our small team) will prevent any further drama.
We entirely appreciate what we perceive to be Fosters position, and, despite last weeks comments, believe that 12 months in a display cabinet is an excellent use of the visually stunning Ambassador - though we would prefer someone was drinking it!
Original Post
A couple of posts ago I talked up the Crown Ambassador Reserve as being a beer worth buying...I still hold to that ( I still think it shows that when they want to Fosters can brew interesting beer) but I received a copy of the International Beer Shop's newsletter this week, where they said this...
Shame on you Fosters!Crown Ambassador, the beer that (according to Fosters) pioneered and defined luxury beer in the Australian market is not available to bottlestores without a purchase of 5 pallets of Crown Lager - posing the question: luxury lager or simply a subversive marketing strategy? Our apologies to any members that had requested the beer (this year and last), we simply couldn't convince Fosters that we deserved any. I guess to Foster's credit they did give a lot away to celebrities and sports/media stars - a better investment/advertisement than having it sit for 12 months on a store shelf (and yes we've heard of some stores with last year's vintage still in stock).
Thankfully, we have plenty of other limited release strong beers, all crafted with passion and without any input from any marketing department. Those interested in the style can check out (in no particular order):- Mikkeller Big Worse- Rogue XS Old Crustacean Barleywine (+ the rest of the Rogue XS range)- Nogne O #100- BrewDog Isle of Arran Imperial Stout- St Ambroise Vintage Ale- Fullers Vintage Ale- Murray's Anniversary Ale- Unibroue 17- Cooper's Vintage Ale
I have checked with a couple of smaller Brisbane retailers and they didn't have the same conditions put on them, so I'm not sure how widespread this requirement is, but I'm not surprised. Even though CAR is a pretty good beer - and a very impressive gift (two very different things) - it is still a marketing exercise. IBS pose the question, "luxury lager or simply a subversive marketing strategy?" Why can't it be both? Six thousand bottles of a beer is (excuse the pun) extremely small beer for a brewer producing billions of stubbies a year, even one selling for $70 a bottle. They do it as an attempt to put a halo around the Crown brand, which has diminished greatly over the last half decade.
Ten years ago there was what I called the "Crown ceiling" for most restaurants' beer lists, where the most expensive beer on the menu was pretty much Crown. You couldn't put another more expensive beer on the menu because it wouldn't sell. The general appreciation for beer - or at least the perception of beer - was that Crown was as good as you could get in Australia so you couldn't charge more for a craft beer or an import.
Tastes have changed, and you will regularly see beers costing more on a menu these days. I'm not sure that you can say that the average drinker is much more informed though because the beers that have broken the Crown ceiling include international brands brewed under licence such as Stella and Becks, but that just shows how important marketing is. Crown Ambassador Reserve is designed to give the ailing Crown brand a lift - and if that means requiring retailers to buy huge amounts of the regular Crown, then that's what Fosters will do. After all, beer is their business and marketing is central to that business...although the business Fosters is in is growing their business by selling shitloads of beer, not building a sustainable business - and hopefully making a living - by brewing great beer, which is the modest ambition of many of the smaller brewers springing up.
Mind you, that's where Foster's strategy of requiring mass purchases of Crown may hurt them. If it is common practice, there are going to be retailers all over the place with their storages stocked with Crown. Lagers of that type don't last very long and so the beer either needs to be sold - and that means discounts - or it will sit around unrefrigerated until sold, which could see it age. Even worse, if the retailer's storage space is really full the pallets will be pulled out of the storage in the morning to sit around in the sun until close up time when it will be wheeled back in - a common sight at the big liquor retailers. Either way, discounting or aged, stale beer will hurt the brand further...but that's never really been the concern of accountants and marketers - after getting a pat on the back for a short-term lift in sales - will just come up with a clever way to try and mend its tarnished crown in 6 or 12 months time. Watch out for specials on Crown in the coming months - something that you never saw in the past as Fosters maintained its "premium" branding.
All that said, I think I'd pretty much prefer any of the beers that the International Beer Shop recommended too. But I also know a lot of dads who will be more impressed - and more thankful - for "a $70 bottle of Crownie" because to them it has more cachet - and a nicer box - than some Scandinavian beer that he can't pronounce. But that's the power of marketing for you. And that is something that Fosters does very well.
Still, if Mikkeller Big Worse or Unibroue 17 mean more to you than Crown - you're my kind of beer drinker. You should check out IBS if you haven't already...
Irony has wonderful timing. In my post about DB Breweries' trademarking of “saison” and “radler” I posed a question to the NZ Intellectual Property Office about how they would regard a foreign trademarking of a New Zealand cultural symbol. Today I read that an English soccer club is to perform a flippant haka before its season-opening game this week, despite legal protests that it insults Maori.
While I am very sympathetic to the sensitivities around the issue, I hope that those in NZ who oppose the use of the “bastardised” haka “because it disrespects their heritage” wholeheartedly join in SOBA’s call to boycott DB. Let’s face it, the Monteith’s Radler is the beer equivalent of the Spice Girls doing the haka.
Amazingly, in a country that permitted the trademarking of descriptive beer names, the Intellectual Property Office rejected the trademarking of the haka in 2006 by the Ngati Toa people, the people who had such a strong moral claim to ownership to it that it was recognised in a $300 million treaty.
I wrote this article for today’s The Punch where I have a regular beer column. To be honest, I felt a little conflicted at first about SOBA’s call to boycott Monteith’s but thought I should investigate the issue a little further because SOBA aren't a bunch of reactionaries automatically anti big breweries.
On the one hand I have really been enjoying their Doppelbock Winter Ale this winter (even if bocks and doppelbocks are traditionally lagers) and have been encouraging others to try it even recommending it in a previous Punch article, on the radio show and featuring it at a number of Good Beer Lunches and other beer appreciation events. On the other, DB Breweries’ act of registering names that they knew were traditional beer styles as trade marks is a cynical corporate act that hurts beer by preventing other brewers from using the legitimate names of beer styles to describe their product. DB knew what they were doing and their sole argument justifying their actions is they claim to have invested heavily in their brands and so are entitled to protect them. Except that "Monteith’s Saison" or "Monteith’s Radler" or "Original Crafted MONTEITH'S Strong & Malty Bock WINTER BIER" are brands (although as the article makes clear, not even the first two are trademarkable in Australia). Radler and saison by themselves are styles. Following their logic, the way they are promoting the beers and talking up their history and origins they want to cash in the history and evolution of the tradition of these styles - the hard work and intellectual property of the people who actually created the styles - but deny their use to other New Zealand brewers. What they have done essentially comes down to saying “we were first to the door so we are entitled to slam it behind us”. Simple, except in the eyes of the law and empty corporate suits.
In researching the article I emailed questions to both Dominion Brewery DB Breweries and the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand. I wasn’t able to include much of their replies in the actual article, but for completeness here are their answers in full. (I have to say that the Senior Communications Advisor from New Zealand’s Ministry of Economic Development was very helpful and her answers very complete - and informative about trade mark law).
So, as conflicted as I feel supporting a call for a boycott of a beer that I have been singing the praises of until now, I'll get over it. This sort of crap can only hurt beer by making it harder to promote good beer and educate the public about something other than bland lager. If a brewer can't name a beer after its style then that's just wrong...especially when the trademark owner bastardises the style as they've done with Radler (although they're not alone there). Even if Dominion DB Breweries was legitimately able to register the trademark - and the court case will decide that - it's bad for beer and bad corporate citizenship.
If you agree, let them know here. It seems that it's the only way a market driven business will be swayed.
Ministry of Economic Development's responses:
Regarding your inquiry about trade marks, I hope the following explanation about the process surrounding trade marks is helpful.
The trade mark system, established under the New Zealand Trade Marks Act 2002, generally has three stages in which concerns about a trade mark can be raised: examination; opposition; and invalidity.
1. As part of the examination process, the Act requires IPONZ to consider the eligibility of a mark for registration at the date on which it was applied for. This would include conducting a search of the New Zealand trade marks register to determine whether the trade mark applied for is confusingly similar to another trade mark already on the register and conducting research into the meaning of the trade mark applied for in New Zealand at the time of filing, including whether at that time New Zealand consumers would have understood the trade mark as describing a characteristic of the goods or services for which registration is sought and whether other traders would have a legitimate need to use that trade mark in connection with their own similar goods or services. If no concerns are raised by IPONZ, or the applicant’s written response satisfies IPONZ that its initial concerns in relation to the application should be withdrawn, the trade mark will be accepted and published for opposition purposes.
2. Opposition is a way of challenging a trade mark once it has passed through the examination stage and has been accepted for registration. This mechanism allows anyone who thought the trade mark should not be registered to lodge an objection opposing registration of the trade mark. If no opposition is lodged, the trade mark will proceed to registration.
3. The invalidity process is a way of challenging a trade mark once it has been registered. An invalidity proceeding has the extra hurdle of a party having to show why they are aggrieved by the registration.
The trade mark system is designed to accommodate conflicting views and to provide workable processes for the resolution of the opposing interests and views of different parties.
Regarding the "radler" case, it is currently before the hearings office and as such, it is inappropriate for us to comment on it. Nonetheless I hope this information is useful.
Response 2 (in response to follow up questions which are included)
- You mention that there is an opposition stage. How is the registration advertised so that interested businesses and consumers may learn of the trademark and object if needed?
When an application for registration of a trade mark is accepted, the application is advertised in the New Zealand Patent Office Journal. The Journal is published on a monthly basis and is available to search and download from the IPONZ website at www.iponz.govt.nz. Any person who wishes to oppose the registration of the trade mark can do so within three months from the date of advertisement in the Journal.
- Without dealing specifically with the radler case, are specialty trade terms that may not necessarily be widely known to NZ consumers but are used internationally within a specific industry - including commonly overseas - trademarkable?
When assessing whether a term is eligible for registration as a trade mark, IPONZ will determine how the term would be understood by New Zealand consumers at the time the application was filed and whether other traders would have a legitimate need to use that term in connection with their own similar goods or services. As part of that determination, IPONZ may conduct a search of the internet in order to assess whether the term is commonly used overseas within the trade in question. That information is taken into account and is a factor when determining whether other New Zealand traders should be free to use the term.
- The word 'Saison' is trademarked in New Zealand. It is a French word meaning season and has been used to describe a specific Belgian style of beer for over 150 years. What would the NZ Government's attitude be to a distinctly New Zealand product or name, or a even Maori word or symbol, being trademarked in a foreign country preventing NZ businesses from exporting their product to that country.
Trade mark rights are national rights – It is up to each country’s domestic laws to set out the terms and conditions for the registration of term/word/symbol etc as a trade mark. Registrability is assessed on the basis of what terms consumers and traders understand in that country. It is possible for foreign terms to be registered as trade marks in any country, provided the term is capable of being distinctive for the goods and service for which it is registered. Just because the term may be considered generic descriptor for a particular good or service (or incapable of being distinctive) in one country does not automatically mean that it is generic in all other countries of the world. Hence, foreign words are registered in New Zealand as trade marks or part of a trade mark, just as English words are registered as trade marks in non-English speaking countries.
The policy issue here is that in foreign jurisdictions, such as Germany, distinct New Zealand or Maori words and symbols, may be considered to be sufficiently unique (non-common) to be able to distinguish the goods/services of one trader from those of another, therefore meeting the criteria for trade mark registration. At present, there is no international legal standard to prevent these circumstances (trade marking of common words in other linguistic jurisdictions) from occurring. It is a matter of addressing the issue through the national laws of the country in question and using their criteria and exceptions as a basis for objection to the competing foreign trade mark or for defending a perceived infringement.
DB Breweries Limited's Communications Manager's responses
Response 1
- DB has trademarked the name "Radler". I believe that the brewery has also trademarked the name "Saison". Do you accept that these are internationally recognised names for beer styles?
For your background information, Monteith’s Radler was first produced by the Monteith’s Brewing Company in 2001.
Monteith’s, which dates back to 1868, was looking to add a limited edition release to its portfolio after the huge success of Monteith’s Summer Ale. The team decided an appealing citrus infused full strength and full flavoured beer would fit well with the existing Monteith’s variants. The brand name ‘Radler’ was chosen because the team wanted something distinct and interesting. At this time, the term "radler" had no meaning to ordinary New Zealand consumers.
A beer mixed with lemonade is a shandy in New Zealand.
In 2003, two years after Monteith’s Radler was launched, the Monteith’s Brewing Company applied to The Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ) to trademark the brand name ‘Radler’. This application was granted.
Yes, DB Breweries and Monteith’s are aware the term ‘Radler’ is used overseas. But our application to IPONZ was successful because at the time, the term ‘Radler’ was not in common usage in New Zealand and because it was specific to Monteith’s.
In January this year it was brought to DB’s attention that Dunedin-based Green Man Brewery has released a beer under the name Green Man Radler. DB wrote to Green Man asking them to respect our registered trademark rights .The company agreed and placed stickers on its bottles replacing the trade mark "radler" with the word ‘Cyclist’.
A few months later the trademark issue was raised by SOBA (the Society of Beer Advocates). DB Breweries received notification from Hamilton lawyers James and Wells that SOBA had applied to have the trademark ‘Radler’ declared invalid on behalf of SOBA through IPONZ. This process is underway and is likely to take a further three to four months.
- Has DB attempted to trademark any of the style names: bock, doppelbock, porter, winter ale, tripel or pilsner? If so, which. If not, why given that you brew these beer styles and have made a significant investment in these beer brands?
Monteith’s currently produces Monteith’s Black; Monteith’s Celtic; Monteith’s Golden; Monteith’s Original; Monteith’s Pilsner as well as two seasonal releases: Monteith’s Summer Ale and Monteith’s Dopplebock Winter Ale. We obviously make our own decisions regarding registration of trade marks based on the investment in them and other considerations. We protect each of our variants as we consider appropriate. We also have a trade mark registration for SAISON dating back to a seasonal release in around 2001.
DB Breweries trademarked “Radler” as a reflection of the significant investment it had made and the brand recognition we had achieved from 2001 until 2003. This investment continues. The trade-marking of brands is standard business practice worldwide.
- I have seen comments from the brewery defending its right to protect it's trademark, but is it appropriate to trademark names that are identified styles of beer? Isn't this exactly the same as a New Zealand winery trademarking the name "Champagne" for a sparkling wine?
As we understand it, the term Champagne is protected by the French and can be used only by producers from a specific grape growing and wine producing region. There is no comparison between these situations in this regard.
- Would the DB trademark prevent a German-brewed Radler beer from being imported into NZ, or a Saison such as Saison Dupont? Has DB ever enforced its rights in respect to imported beers in this way?
DB Breweries owns the trademark “Radler” in the New Zealand environment. A trade mark registration gives the owner the exclusive right to use the trade mark in New Zealand. That means no one can produce or import a beer branded “Radler”. We have not been aware of any imported beer called “Radler”.
Response 2 (to follow up questions)
- You indicated that you weren't aware of any imported beers using the name Radler. Are there any imported Saisons available in NZ? For example Saison Dupont. Has DB ever exercised or sought to exercise its legal rights in relation to imported or domestic Saisons?
No, we are not aware of any commercial quantities of imported beer using the name Saison in NZ.
- Has DB made application to register any of the other style names that you produce (eg Doppelbock)
We have trade mark registrations which cover aspects of most of the Monteith’s beer variants which we produce and we assess each on a case by case basis. I don’t think any of the registrations include the term Doppelbock.
- Appellation d’origine contrôlée notwithstanding I think the champagne analogy is relevant, but I will rephrase it. A decade ago the wine style Pinot Grigio was barely known and certainly not in common use. Given that DB neither invented the Radler style nor its name and at best popularised it in the last few years, how does trademarking the Radler name differ from the situation had a wine maker trademarked Pinot Grigio a decade ago?
Pinot Grigio is a grape variety. DB has not registered a variety of hops or barley as a trade mark. There is no real analogy in that respect. As mentioned earlier, ‘Radler’ was chosen because the team wanted something distinct and interesting. At the time, the term “radler” had no meaning to ordinary New Zealand consumers which is why the trade mark was granted.
Big breweries have some obvious advantages over small breweries, not least are the massive economies of scale that come from buying the ingredients for tens of millions of litres of beer rather than tens of thousands. They also have highly industrialised processes that enable them to achieve almost unnatural consistency for their product which enables every beer to taste just like the last. On the other hand, small breweries have certain advantages too - not least is the ability to produce an enormous array of flavourful beers that don't have to appeal to the widest possible demographic to survive. They can experiment with styles and flavours because they are brewing far smaller batches and serving a different constituency for their beers. Capitalising on this advantage, Australian small breweries are starting to produce an amazing selection of great beers.
Still things are pretty tough for small breweries. Their offerings are generally competing at the same price point as the "craft" offerings from the big brewers, despite being far more expensive to produce due to smaller economies. Therefore their profit margins are thinner for the same beer. Also, they cannot hope to complete with the advertising, distribution and public relations machines that the big brewers have.
Still, sometimes I see claims made to support "craft" brewers that defy logic. The can really stretch credibility and can downright harm the broader public's slowly growing knowledge of the industry.
For example, I received the following media release from Snowy Mountains (emphasis is mine).
‘Greenwashed' beverages and Natural beer
In the non-alcoholic beverage field there are juices that claim to be healthy, yet contain as much sugar as soft drinks. Similarly, fruit and flavor infused waters and vitamin enhanced drinks often are sugar sweetened - making the natural and healthy suggestion as per the packaging, branding and labeling misleading. In the beer industry itself it is just starting that we are seeing genuine eco-beers such as the Cascade Green (carbon neutral) appearing. Yet some brands are producing beers with claims of being ‘natural', which can not necessarily be justified. When it comes to ingredients there shouldn't be anything much else in beer other than the basic four ingredients, said Snowy Mountains Brewery managing director Kevin O'Neill.
With the growing trend of people wanting to choose environmentally friendly products many more products have appeared on our shelves making ‘green' claims, appearing to be natural, environmentally friendly or carry logos that suggest being better for the environment, when these claims are not necessarily qualified. This is referred to as ‘Green Washing' - which ultimately misleads conscientious consumers. Among the hype of eco-friendly production, ‘Greenwash' marketing and natural ingredients claims - award-winning craft brewer O'Neill takes a basic approach.
"The obvious is to choose a product that has been deliberately made without additives and extra ingredients; this is especially true for beer, which traditionally is made from only four basic ingredients - hops, malt, yeast and water," said the natural craft brewer. "Don't be fooled, cane sugar is not a traditional ingredient in beer," he added.
"Choosing smaller breweries such as craft and boutique labels means you are supporting smaller operations which usually do have a lesser carbon foot print simply due to the size of their operation. Then look at choosing beer styles that follow traditional recipes such as Pilsner, wheat beers and ales that follow closely the oldest food and beverage laws still in existence - the Germany purity law or ‘Reinheitsgebot' from 1516. This rule permits the use of only 4 basic ingredients for beer production - not that it is compulsory to comply with that here in Australia, yet the brands that do are a good choice as this ensures as natural a beer as possible with the proof often found in the taste."
"The smaller a brewery or label the more attention goes toward individual flavour and care in production versus large operations of standard beer. And I think people are catching on," said O'Neill.
The Australian craft, boutique and premium beer market has been the strongest growing segment, indicating more people are beginning to prefer to drink a better tasting and natural beer. With the impact of the economic down-turn being felt in most areas, alcoholic beverages seem to keep selling despite people changing their spending habits in other areas.
"It shows me that consumers are not happy to do without, but are starting to go for less of a better product than trading quality and flavour for a lesser spend," O'Neill said.
Craft and boutique beers are usually sold at a slightly higher price than standard beers, but most often offer greater taste, less additives and a lower environmental impact than large breweries. More and more restaurants and eateries are following this trend by stocking locally produced specialty beers, smaller labels and naturally produced alternatives to the usual standard ales.
"We are also seeing a lot more food and beer pairing popping up in restaurants, menus, cook books and food styling articles" explains Kevin O'Neill, who founded the Snowy Mountains Brewery in 2004 following a skiing trip to the famous destination.
Snowy Mountains Brewery produces their Bullocks Pilsner, Charlotte's Hefeweizen (wheat beer), the award winning Razorback Red Ale and their Crackenback Pale Ale following the strict purity law and has been recognised with a stack of awards including four Australian International Beer Awards Medals, a People's Choice Award and two Australian Hotel Beer Awards in 2007 and 2008.
Kevin's 3 tips for choosing a better tasting beer are:
1 Look for beers made by smaller brands and boutique breweries 2 Read the label for the list of ingredients and whether it is made or owned by a large mother company 3 Try traditional beer styles (purity, traditional characters, no additives) rather than ‘middle of the road' or standard brews
At the outset, I have a natural sympathy to small breweries and Snowy Mountains is making some very good beers, they have won a stack of awards for them and, importantly, they are doing good things for beer generally. But sending a release like this out just spreads misinformation about beer at a time when mainstream reporting on beer is already pretty ordinary.
In terms of this release though it's all over the place, seeming to suggest that smaller breweries are more environmentally friendly than big breweries, that 'natural' beer only has four ingredients and smaller breweries are necessarily better.
To deal with these in the order they appear...
1. When it comes to ingredients there shouldn't be anything much else in beer other than the basic four ingredients, said Snowy Mountains Brewery managing director Kevin O'Neill.
If this were true, the Belgian brewing industry is screwed and I won't be able to drink some of my favourite beers. Coriander, orange peel, candy sugar, oats, honey, chocolate, cherries and raspberries would all be barred from "good" beers, meaning that a wide range of great Belgian styles couldn't be made. Even cane sugar, used by brewers to lighten the body and colour of a beer, isn't necessarily an evil. A wide range of very respected - and flavoursome - beers use small amounts of cane sugar for a variety of reasons and still produce good beers.
2. "Choosing smaller breweries such as craft and boutique labels means you are supporting smaller operations which usually do have a lesser carbon foot print simply due to the size of their operation.
This is like saying buses should be outlawed because they create more pollution than cars. Unfortunately, they also move more people. Big breweries create less pollution per litre of beer produced than many small breweries. There are some excellent small breweries - such as Mountain Goat - that are making huge inroads into reducing their carbon footprint, but then again the Fosters Brewery at Yatala is using something like 2.2 litres of water for every litre of beer produced which is a phenomenal result.
There are a huge range of factors at play in "environmentally friendly". If a craft brewer is using speciality grain from Germany, it's going to create more pollution and food miles than domestic grain from the Darling Downs; kegs are more environmentally friendly than bottles although shipping empty kegs around the country is pretty polluting; bottles are more polluting to transport than cans...it's not easy to say what is the least polluting way to make beer but you definitely cannot make the above claim, particularly in a media release drawing attention to the practice of "greenwashing".
3. "The smaller a brewery or label the more attention goes toward individual flavour and care in production versus large operations of standard beer.
As much as it pains me to support big brewers over small, while they may make less flavoursome beers that appeal to the widest possible market, you cannot fault their attention to detail and care in the brewing process. This doesn't result in better flavoured beer but it is high quality and consistent to a degree that small brewers envy. They don't go after the flavoursome end of the market the way smaller brewers do, but you cannot question their "quality" in terms of care and attention. In this sense, "flavour" and "quality" are two very different issues.
This also raises the question of what a small brewery is. The media release constantly refers to small breweries and small labels and I assume the latter is referring to Snowy Mountains. Snowy Mountains is neither a brewery nor small. Snowy Mountains beers are contract brewed at the 100-hectolitre (10,000 litre) plant at Australian Independent Brewers in Sydney. To put that into perspective, Northern Rivers Brewery at Alstonville has possibly Australia's smallest commercial plant with a 3.5 hectolitre plant (350 litre batches). A typical small brewery or brew pub runs anything from 6 - 20 hectolitre plants (600 - 2000 litres).
Now, none of this is to suggest there is anything wrong with either contract brewing or brewing at that size, but it is disingenuous to try and cast yourself as a small brewery (and while the release doesn't specifically say it, it is certainly the tone). Snowy Mountains makes really good, flavoursome beers, (as do Barons Brewing who also brew out of AIB), you can brew great beers out of big breweries (again, look at the Belgians and the Germans) but be honest about what you are and let your beer speak for itself.
I am no apologist for big breweries, but I'm pretty sure that if Lion Nathan or Fosters put this release out (or Coopers for that matter) they would have the ACCC on their tail in no time...
I've been reading with interest for the last year or more about Scott Kerkmans who has the dream job as Chief Beer Officer advising the Four Points by Sheraton chain of hotels on local beers to stock in their properties around the world. WIth the recent mentions in Australia I have been quite excited that an Australian hotel chain might be doing something interesting with beer...so I followed the link from The Australian story to see what delights they would be stocking in Australia. The US properties stock such luminaries as Fat Tire Amber, Stone Arrogant Bastard and Dogfish Head 60 Minuute IPA on their local craft list and Duvel and Chimay on their imported list. Click on the Asia Pacific properties and we are blessed with such rare and wonderful delights at VB (the biggest selling beer in Australia...the mainest of mainstream beers), Tooheys and XXXX. Even the biggest selling low-carb beer Pure Blonde makes the grade. The closest thing to "craft" are the unspecified beers from James Squire and the Matilda Bay Redback. These are excellent beers, but by the US Brewers Association's definition of "Craft" even they wouldn't qualify as craft beers, though in Australia's relatively nascent industry they do fit into the catch all description. A selection like this is bad for three reasons. Firstly it doesn't provide the "unique, local experience" Scott promises in his extensive media statements; secondly, it does nothing to develop the local beer industry or support the true small brewers, finally it does nothing to educate Australian guests about their beer and provides international guests with a false impression about our beers.
Managing the beer portfolios for an international suite of hotels would be a monumental job but, despite the marketing hype surrounding the Four Points initiative, beer is something Scott does seem genuinely passionate about. It'll be interesting to see what sort of notes he took during his recent visit and whether the beer list (and website) is updated as a result!
Issue 7 of the magazine just went to the printers, so it's been a crazy week or so hence no posts. Consequently there is a backlog of things for me to get off my chest...
The first is beer snobbery. I love beer and I want to see it become a more valued drink. I want to see interesting lists served at good restaurants, I want to hear people talk about the hop aroma and malt profile and I want to see people care about how they store their beers and drink them from glasses. I think It's important that people know the difference between a lager and an ale. That is all about the enjoyment of beer - respecting it and not mindlessly guzzling it. What I don't want to see is beer become wine with the all of the posing and posturing and the one-upmanship that comes from supposedly knowing more than the bloke at the bar next to you.
Yesterday, I was introduced to a guy that "loves his beer and knows all about it, he tries new ones all the time". We had a brief chat during which I offered him a bottle of one of the beers that I had on me from a tasting I had conducted. It was from a small brewery and I thought he may not have tried it before. "No thanks, I've tried it," he said in a way that suggested he didn't think too much of it.
"How would you rate it," asked the pub owner who introduced us.
"Five out of ten," pronounced the connoisseur without hesitation.
This genuinely surprised me as I really enjoy this particular beer, it's well regarded by others and the beer has done well at various competitions.
"What didn't you like about it," I enquired, expecting an considered answer about hop and malt balance or some such, given the authority with which the rating had been pronounced.
"Don't like the style," was the reply.
Now, there are a stack of styles that I don't like...the previously mentioned low-carb lagers being an example. I'm also not a lover of highly-hopped IPAs - which puts me out of step with most latter day craft beer lovers - but there is a huge difference between not liking a style and not thinking that a particular beer is a well-made, balanced, true-to-style example of a style. This distinction is important. This guy was introduced to me as someone who "knows his beers" and either deliberately or inadvertently he is an influencer for his circle of friends because he is regarded as a beer authority. His pronouncements on a beer carry weight in that circle. If he damns a beer, as he did, just because he doesn't like the style, he may be denying his friends the chance to try a beer that they will like because they don't share his dislike of the style. He has also not extended his or their appreciation of beer if he tastes it and regardless of how good it is, doesn't like the style, dismisses it and leaves it as that. For him it could be the best made beer in the category ever and would still only get five out of ten because his enquiry stopped at not liking the style and yet was willing to damn it with what I saw as pompous authority.
It is a natural human condition to like to (a) know more about something than someone else, and (b) want to be recognised for that. In most areas of interest this can also lead to a snobbery or willingness to dismiss those who know less as being somehow less discerning and lesser members of "the club". But some of the best brewers and beer judges I have met are incredibly modest in their discussion of beer, even with the casual drinker of it. They genuinely listen to what the other person is saying about their experience of the beer. They do prompt with question like, "well what does that remind you of" when discussing a flavour profile, but they never say, "you're wrong, this beer doesn't taste like that," or "how can you say this is a good beer, it's swill" because everyone's experience of beer is different and perception of flavour is highly individual. For me, that's the difference between appreciation and snobbery.
While I want to see more people out there drinking, appreciating, discussing and debating beer, I hope that pronouncement and snobbishness are left to other areas of the drinks trade.
Afterall, it's just beer.
I normally eagerly await new beers from Gage Roads. It's a good brewery and their recent run of seasonals 
has been pretty good. So when I received a media release today about a new beer I opened it expectantly, wondering what delights they had in store for me...instead I found a media release trumpeting a new low-carb beer, Kutt.
I will say at the outset that I haven't tried Kutt yet and it could be the greatest beer of 2008...but I doubt it. No offence to anyone who actually likes likes low-carb beers for their flavour, but everyone else is getting conned. Compared to almost anything else you are drinking, ALL BEERS ARE LOW-CARB! So much so that last year Lion Nathan started marketing XXXX Gold as lower-carb - they could simply because it fit the definition, not because they changed it in any way.
Fosters publishes a table of the carbohydrate levels of its beers which makes for fascinating reading. VB has 3g of carbohydrates per 100ml of beer (roughly 10g for a stubby), Carlton Draught has 2.7g, Crown Lager 3.1g and Redback Original has 3.6g. Amazingly Guinness (with its "pork chop in every glass") has 3.6g per 100ml. These all have fewer carbs than milk (4.9g/100ml) or chocolate milk (9g/100ml). Then there's 15.7g of carbs in 20g of plain flour and 21.7 grams in a 35 gram Tim Tam.
Now, I'm not suggesting you drink beer instead of milk, but it does put things in some perspective. I would rather forgo the Tim Tam and have a beer with real flavour.
Beers that are marketed as low carbs are just that, marketing. All you need to do is read the second paragraph of a media release about a new beer:
"It is presented in unique packaging that reflects the style and aspirations of the consumer. The stylish graphics and the extra long bottle bring something new and fresh to the low carb beer market."
Huh?? The graphics and the bottle...what about the taste of the beer? Shouldn't that be what Kutt brings to the low carb beer market? Nope, jumping on the low-carb bandwagon (while trying to shoe-horn in mentions of craft beer - but I'll write about that later), slick graphics and clear, trendy bottle. This is the beer equivalent of a fast-talking, leased-Mercedes, dripping in gold jewellery, Gold Coast life coach.
I don't mean to single out Kutt - it equally applies to all of the low-carb beers - though Kutt certainly turns the marketing up to 11.
If you like the flavour of low-carb beers, you might find something here. If you force yourself to drink low-carb thinking it's good for you, have something you actually like (in moderation) and lay off on the Tim Tams.
Me, I'll wait 'till Gage Roads' next seasonal comes out...