London Beer™ Wars

It was bound to happen at some point. Small guys acting like the big guys. The past couple of years in London have seen an explosion in the English capital to what is now over 50 breweries within the M25. Sooner or later, they were bound to step on each other’s toes.


Call up round one contenders Camden Town Brewery Est. 2010 vs. Weird Beard Brew Co. Est. 2012.


Late in 2013 Weird Beard decided to do a collaboration with the craft beer disciples who worked at the Brew Dog Bar in Camden to create a mouth wateringly delicious APA style beer (or so says RateBeer). The brew was part of a collaboration project between Brew Dog Bars and UK breweries. Along came the release of the beer which they decided to title Camden BearD. Spelled in such a manner that you would “Notice the B & D in BearD are both capital, this was meant to be read as Camden BD, as in Camden Brew Dog.” However, one brewery of the area took exception to the use of the geographical reference to Camden (a borough in north London). Que Camden Town Brewery. They took exception to the use of ‘Camden’ in the title of the beer – clearly not due to the look of the label considering Camden Town’s labels are as follows. Subsequently they contacted James Watt at Brew Dog and requested the change from Camden to London – London Beard, unbeknownst to Weird Beard. This request and change was done despite the fact that the beer was 100% Weird Beard owned, produced and sold. Weird Beard were aware of whispers of disquiet by Camden Town, however, assumed if any issue arose they would be contacted. The realisation in the name change only came after a visit to the pub by the Weird Beard chaps. After the visit, the name was changed back to its original.


The following month Weird Beard decided to brew the beer again. Soon thereafter Camden Town this time contacted Weird Beard directly and requested a recall of the beer, referencing an earlier agreement with Brew Dog to change the name and the fact that they owned the name ‘Camden’. Despite Camden Town already claiming ownership of the name they decided to register ‘Camden’ as a European trademark subsequent to their contact with Weird Beard (a move which will ensure them firmer ground if the issue arises again). Generally it can be accepted that geographical origins are not to be trademarked (i.e. London, Maine, New York, Sydney etc.) however, in and under some circumstances businesses may have a claim to such a trademark. Informed that it might come down to the Judge on the day and the vast expenses of taking on a much larger brewery Weird Beard decided against standing up in litigation. They may have had the last laugh though, as the new name K*ntish Town appears to go down a treat with London locals. Camden Town Brewery is actually located under Kentish Town West Overground station. All very good wordplay indeed.


For a full recount of the above from the Weird Beard point of view (which most of this is based off), read the following: Camden BearD


Que round two and again it’s Camden Town, this time up against a seasoned fighter Redwell Brewery Est. 2012.


Redwell are not new to the trademark controversy arena having previously been unsuccessfully manoeuvred by energy drink behemoths Red Bull into changing their name, just have a look at the following: Red Bull ends dispute with Redwell brewery in Norwich. It seems Redwell has been another brewery to step on Camden Town’s toes. Again relating to the name of a beer, however, this time not a geographical location but a beer style. It seems some would argue that Camden Town is not content with owning a piece of land but a piece of brewing style as well. The style here is Helles – my preferred spelling. Camden Town produce a beer called Camden Hells Lager. Redwell decided to do a figurative trademark of Redwell Hells Craft Lager.


Both breweries decided to deliver impassioned public statements to each other, here from Camden Town and here from Redwell. It seems that Camden Town believe they own the word trademark rights to the use of Hells when referring to a particular beer as they see it as “a unique product with a unique name”. I hear the cries already – it’s Helles with an ‘e’! Now this morning I would have agreed with you all. However, as the hours of the day have passed my view has changed. Camden Town are not the only brewery to use Hells when describing a lager style beer, see here and here - although the vast majority is with an ‘e’. These examples are on top of the fact that some German brewers state on their bottle Hell. I remember being back in the newbie days of drinking beer and to be honest if I saw Helles Lager, Hells Lager or Hell Lager I would have thought it was the same style beer and it would appear that others agree, see here an article about Camden Town’s lager by Peter Lalor of the Australian newspaper and author of Great Australian Beer Yarns (he states that they are interchangeable). We must remember that in such disputes it is looking at whether someone from the general public is likely to have a misconception in what they are buying. Now each to their own, but if you think that this is similar this - then you have an exuberant imagination. That being said, this issue here is not the look of things but the words – does the use of Hells in beer exclusively belong to Camden Town? The answer is up to your opinion. There is also some possible conjecture as to the impact of registration of such a word – many other breweries seem to put Hells in the title elsewhere, see here and here. Due to the difficult application of trademark laws this may potentially further impact on any other brewery putting Hells in there title anywhere.


It would be interesting to see whether Camden Town would have had no issue if Redwell had used Helles. We will never know, as if Camden Town were to now admit that they would have no issue with Helles, then Redwell would most likely immediately jump on the fact that Camden Town accept what is essentially an interchangeable term of Hells, Helles and Hell – which is the current argument. Camden ultimately want the word and not just a figurative or stylized trademark – for justifiable reasons as it puts the holder in a very strong position to protect their rights and anything to do with the word Hells in beer.


It is a current argument that Camden Town would appear to already be having with another brewery. As highlighted in their open letter, in December 2013 Camden Town decided to try and trademark the word Hells (this is instead of doing a figurative or stylized trademark), however, it would seem that a Slovakian brewery Steiger argues that it would lead to “Likelihood of confusion”. A full account can be found if searched on the TMview website – the application is now under opposition (whether it will progress or not is subject to debate). Obviously Steiger do not own Hell as a word (they do, however, own a figurative and stylized trademark of the word Hell), this is because it is what many would consider too generic and is also what some consider to be a style of beer – as you would have seen on the German beer bottle linked earlier. Camden Town could avoid the issue by applying for a figurative or stylized trademark just as Steiger. Interestingly, despite the objection at a European level Camden Town (as they stated in the open letter) applied to register the exact same trademark again just last month, see here – the application is now under pre-publication – will or should it be opposed? That’s up to your opinion. The difference between the two is that the first was for the European market through OHIM which actually would have included the United Kingdom and the second through the IPO which just captures the United Kingdom market.


So where will this latest dispute lead? It is anyone’s guess. I hope Camden Town drop the issue or that Redwell stand up for the word Hells and it is not lost to a particular brewery, just as it would appear ‘Camden’ seemingly has. Only because I’m a stickler for what would appear to be generic terms being left alone (i.e. reference to a place and reference to a style of beer) many others may rightfully disagree. Trademarks are an important aspect of protecting what is yours and preventing others from trying to imitate what you do. One should always protect their rights no matter whom or what size the opposition and I don’t (or think anyone would) blame Camden Town for doing so. Disagreements are bound to happen in what is essentially a gray area; no two cases are alike. The current case is no different, with arguments either side. I shall now sit with my popcorn and keyboard and watch the social media coverage continue, waiting to see what all this amounts too. Two things are for sure, this is not the last dispute that will arise and it’s a good time to be a trademark lawyer in London while the breweries are around.


Overall I do enjoy such topical issues. It’s interesting to see people’s well thought out and articulate opinions to be put forward and debated. However, there is a sore reality that this is probably not very fun for either of the breweries involved. As for a dialogue with those who read this. This is simply my 2 cents worth to the issues that lie with trademarks and breweries. I’m too busy for a keyboard warrior debate and don’t have much interest in defending either or any brewery. Please make contact if there are any factual irregularities as I shall correct them as soon as practicably possible and highlight where corrections were made!