Thoughts on Camden and Redwell Hells

So, we have two breweries making a similar product at the same abv with the same name. I can see that the brewery who have been using the name longer might be a bit upset, especially when they have worked as hard as Camden and spent as much money on building a real powerhouse of a brand. 

The nub of it seems to be an argument of lexicon. I don’t speak enough German to accurately report on whether Redwell’s assertion that helles, hells and hell are all interchangeable in terms of meaning. Thinking about it, I have ordered light coloured speciality malt called ‘carahell’ malt from Wayermann in the past so I suppose it must. That aside, I’d argue that Helles, hells and hell are not in most average beer drinker’s lexicon. Helles is probably the most recognisable word to beer drinkers, but I’d argue only to a small wedge of clued up drinkers. Why would Redwell want to muddy the waters for punters who are probably already unaware or unclear as to what any of the terms mean? The only thing I can think is that they are trying to ride on the coat-tails of Camden. Punters may well have had a pint of Camden Hells in London, in the surrounding areas, in a can from Majestic or in a bottle from Waitrose. They see the same word ‘hells’ and assume it is the same type of thing.

Redwell and Camden both have previous on issues of this type. Redwell were issued a cease and desist by Red Bull which, frankly was ridiculous as they are making totally different products. Redwell naturally won that battle. Camden have also thrown their weight about in the past over fairly unimportant and irrelevant use of words similar to their name. Once with Brodies, once with Weird Beard. In both cases, Camden handled it poorly and ended up looking like idiots. I think this is different . Redwell got lots of nice press out of the whole Red Bull issue and they know Camden have handled stuff like this badly in the past. Redwell can pose as the little, wronged guy whilst comparing Camden to big bully-boy breweries like Molson Coors, etc. Redwell have nothing to lose in this situation really, Camden do.

Redwell state that losing the Waitrose contract is one of the main reasons for asking them to stop using the word ‘hells’, almost sneeringly, as if to say ‘look at how huge they are, they supply a supermarket, what a bunch of sellouts’. For Camden it is a legitimate and large concern. Waitrose is a great card to have in your hand with regards to getting your beer to the public. Not only that, in terms of ease, running a brewery, it is a nice little tickover for cashflow and volume. Waitrose will be buying large numbers of pallets of packaged beer regularly, they organise the logistics, they pay on time every month. A big deal if Waitrose delist them.

Whether or not Camden can get the term Hells trademarked or not is a moot point. Redwell chose to omit an ‘E’ from the name, I dare say knowing full well it would upset Camden. For Redwell, it will generate press and, by the end of the week they’ll have backed down and added an ‘E’ to the name. In the meantime, how about we go to the pub, have a nice cold pint and wait for this to all blow over?


4 thoughts on “Thoughts on Camden and Redwell Hells

  1. The Oxford companion to beer defines helles as “a pale golden lager that is the everyday session beer of Bavaria, Germany. The German word “hell” or “helles” simply means “pale.” -Conrad Seidl. I strongly disagree with trademarking a beer style (unless you invent your own style). Anyone who’s been to Oktoberfest is likely to be familiar with the terms. I think Redwell may be playing their violin a bit but I think Camden are daft to build their biggest brand name as a generic beer style and then try to trademark it.


  2. I’ve been drinking both these beers for sometime and love them both, I don’t think there’s any malice with Redwell using it, I’ve know of Camden Hells for ages and never even crossed my mind when I first tried Redwell Hells. I was already aware of other Helles beers and just figured the Hells spelling was a variant, apparently it’s a ‘brand’ though.

    Someone coined the term Pils for a Pilsner right? I guess it was a few hundred years ago but seems like the same thing.
    The issue is the ‘brand’ and maybe Camden have branded their beer a bit too close to the name of the style.


  3. Completely disagree. Camden have not got a leg to stand on. Hells is a style that Camden has failed to trademark. Thereby anyone is entitled to use it. You seem to be looking at it from a very Londoncentric point of view in that drinkers will mistake Redwell for Camden. Most drinkers probably aren’t that familiar with either in the rest of the country. And either punters will know what Hells is or they won’t. But either way it doesn’t matter. Camden won’t suddenly lose a lot of business as people buy Reddwell by mistake. And Redwell would be daft to base a business strategy on that basis.


  4. Pingback: Camden vs. Redwell 2: The Shamen | beersoakedboy

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s