“We are very disappointed,” says Sebastian Priller-Riegele, the original Spezi bottle decoratively in his hand, looking into the television camera. The Augsburgers have just given in in the dispute over the name “Paulaner Spezi” before the Munich Higher Regional Court. “We are a family business,” says the senior boss, “we don’t have that much financial strength to continue arguing.” The final decision has now been made: Paulaner Spezi will continue to be Paulaner Spezi.
Who invented it? That’s right, the Augsburgers, not the Paulaners. Even after the Second World War. At that time there was great demand in pubs for a mix of cola and orange soda, and so the brewery came up with the idea of offering the drink mixed together in one bottle. “Original Spezi Cola Orange” came onto the market.
But the small family brewery couldn’t serve the market all on its own. And in 1974 a certain “Paulaner Salvator Thomas Bräu” became interested in the mishmash. The people from Munich put 10,000 marks on the table and signed an agreement that they could call their mix “Paulaner Spezi” in the future. That’s it. Meanwhile, the Augsburg company also awarded licenses to other partners and even founded its own specialist association in 1977.
“We invested in building the brand,” says Sebastian Priller-Riegele. Hundreds of thousands of euros are being spent on maintaining the brand and legal proceedings are being carried out to defend the Spezi name. And they want Paulaner to join the Spezi association too. But in vain.
Sales of “Paulaner Spezi” are now said to be one million hectoliters. In other words, the drink from the now large Paulaner Brewery Group is on everyone’s lips. Especially among young people, the special is seen as an absolute “in” drink. There wasn’t even any advertising, says press spokeswoman Birgit Zacher. “Taste and design have prevailed.”
The Augsburgers terminated the agreement. The agreement was made with “Paulaner Salvator Thomas Bräu” and not with the current Paulaner group. They wanted to reach a new licensing agreement and ask the large corporation to pay. Paulaner went to court against this.
“There is a peaceful coexistence on the drinks shelf”
However, the civil chamber at the Munich I Regional Court ruled that the contract from 1974 continued to exist and the next instance at the Higher Regional Court also agreed with this opinion. The presiding judge Lars Meinhardt stated that the agreement contained a clause stating that the contract also applies to the legal successors of both parties. And these rights were transferred to the current Paulaner group in 1994. “Riegele has tolerated this,” said Meinhardt – for almost 30 years now.
The interests at the time were clear: Riegele should make his “sign” as strong as possible and also be able to issue licenses, while Paulaner was only interested in the name. The Higher Regional Court gave a clear direction: they could no longer take back what the Augsburg people had allowed back then. It is a coexistence and demarcation agreement and they cannot terminate it. Except, said Judge Meinhardt, when trust is shaken and Paulaner produces “a drink that no one can drink.” But this is not the case. And an “economic imbalance” is also irrelevant for the legal process.
In the end, Riegele withdraws the appeal. The people of Augsburg are disappointed, the people of Paul are happy. “There is a peaceful coexistence on the drinks shelf,” says press spokeswoman Birgit Zacher. “Everyone finds the one they like.”