Reinheitsgebot - 500 Years of the Law of Beer

Happy International Beer Day! In honor of the day, our blog post features a ancient law from medieval Germany that has influenced how this popular adult beverage has been crafted over the last half millennium!

 

Bavarian Dukes Wilhelm and Ludwig, who issued the original German Beer Purity Law in 1516.

Reinheitsgebot - Ancient German beer law that still holds sway

Celebrating its 500th anniversary this year is the Bavarian beer purity law known as Reinheitsgebot. The law was issued by the Dukes Wilhelm and Ludwig of Bavaria in 1516 to ensure that beer was brewed with only three ingredients - barley, hops, and water. Whether it was done to promote public health (yes, beer was a health food in the 1500s) or to drive down the price of wheat to make bread more cheaply, the lasting effects of the law are undeniable. Today, the American brewery Sam Adams proudly reports on its website that it's Boston Lager was the "first American beer sold in Germany" after passing Reinheitsgebot regulations in 1985!

For more on Reinheitsgebot, visit In Custodia Legis, a blog from the Law Library of Congress, and the Smithsonian Magazine, from the Smithsonian Institution.

Latest & Greatest – The 2016 Solo and Small Firm Legal Technology Guide

By Sharon D. Nelson, John W. Simek, and Michael C. Maschke

Published by American Bar Association Law Practice Division (2016)

KF 320 .A9 N457 2016

To kick off ABA Resources Month, we are featuring one of the ABA’s annually-updated books, The 2016 Solo and Small Firm Legal Technology Guide. Simply because you are a small firm or solo attorney, you are not insulated from the technological advances that are happening around you. In fact, the ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct mandate that a lawyer should be competent with relevant technology. Keeping up with technology seems like a cost-prohibitive and daunting task, but the folks at the Law Practice Division of the ABA have made it easier for you with their 2016 Guide. The Guide offers information and recommendations to allow attorneys to find the technological equipment that will give them the most bang for their buck. From hardware to software to smartphones and anything else in between, the Guide takes the guesswork out of purchasing the computer equipment that is most appropriate for your office and business. Not sure which type of case management software is right for you? Turn to Chapter Fourteen to find descriptions of the offerings available. Chapter Fifteen will help you decide which time and billing software is right for you. Confused by cloud computing? Check out Chapter Nineteen for an explanation and some considerations. Want to know more? Come to the Harris County Law Library and look for The 2016 Solo and Small Firm Legal Technology Guide in our ABA Resources display or ask for it at the reference desk.

A Tale of Two Amys: Ice Cream Trademarks Under Dispute

In celebration of National Ice Cream Month, the Harris County Law Library would like to spotlight an ice cream dispute involving one of our capital city’s favorite desserts. In the summer of 2013 Austin-based Amy’s Ice Creams, Inc. filed suit for trademark infringement and related claims against Amy’s Kitchen, Inc., a manufacturer of frozen vegetarian and vegan foods sold in grocery stores across the United States.

Prior to the suit Amy’s Ice Creams filed a federal trademark application for its mark on t-shirts, catering, and “restaurant services featuring: ice cream, fruit ice, candy, chocolates and beverages.” Amy’s Kitchen opposed the application, having begun its own expansion into the cold treats business with a line of “non-dairy frozen desserts.” Applications by Amy’s Kitchen to trademark its mark for cookies and candy bars were then in turn opposed by Amy’s Ice Creams. When discussions between the parties failed to bring about a resolution, Amy’s Ice Creams sued.

Anyone with doubts about the prudence of fighting a protracted legal battle over the name “Amy” will be happy to learn that both “Amy’s” eventually came to the same conclusion. In Amy's Ice Creams, Inc. v. Amy's Kitchen, Inc., 60 F.Supp.3d 738 (2014) the court, inter alia, granted Amy’s Kitchen’s motion for summary judgment on Amy’s Ice Creams’ unjust enrichment claim, denied Amy’s Kitchen’s other motions for summary judgment, and denied Amy’s Ice Creams’ motions for summary judgment. In other words, for either party to obtain relief through the courts, a full (and likely expensive) trial would be necessary. Both parties subsequently dismissed the lawsuit and Amy’s Ice Creams narrowed its food services trademark to “restaurant services featuring ice cream; catering.” It’s a winning scenario for everyone: The two companies no longer have to argue whether the name “Amy’s” is distinctive or has secondary meaning in Texas, and Texans are free to enjoy a greater variety of ice cream—both with and without dairy.