Tobacco Documents Online

,(I ~ Von der H;~uptverltung ~c- ''2'°l "'" (,6 ",,11% der B•A- T' Cigarettenfabriken G'mbH, :.e.. B'A'•T: ~4usanscnr.p.._ _~ue->a+e• 4 2000 ltiamou.9.36~ - . ~ . . - . . ..~ [onuk:e... ~ Ga0i~,n.<•-0.:ele.~2':73a56 'eteloae,er~C,a-- -c5T.32331Tltel -- Ronten C-esome,tae. Mamen,rq3.8t0653.E113.'OOBOJOC Pesfscneet'romo:w~rrSP.3E'~9'.~2^9'BLZ200!100~2D. . Ault.chtsrasvorsrtaenpe•!> MawO.ErKllsen ., Vorstana :leterwon j(YCnt'.. VMs,ItefWer: ftjDe^. Wenn.9 EP'ti.•O.RmhSnaus'. Roll Fupe'_`: .ri..Me' Jt`! - ste'ti'e'I*ei,enC lUtnCtlN~ernanr.; W.HrlleO.$Iegleoer -a'K-AtloN Tpmal , Shtund Reyisterp.rKrtt wmoury;.ArntsQeucm r7amoarp raAB 1'a9i Anscnnh £_'. o_sttacr: 300660 2000 Haaroury 36 Nick Ganrnar, Esq. B•A•T' Industrie Ltd. Westminster House 7, Millbank London SWiP 3JE/Lngland' \r~ 11x 26cnen 1' unserzecnet: R-Dr/gl 01xcnw4r0 72241 p Dat~~n 5,e,4..~19.p5. Bet.:- Barclays Dear Nick$ J I refer to our telephone conversation of'the 3rd April im, whichiI advised you of the content of the preliminary DIN standard for the determination of the condensate and nicotine content of cigarettes which are ventilated by channels, whichihas just come into force. At the same time I also advised you that the German cigarette irndustry had in the meantime also agreed on the closure of the Barclays' proceedings pending'in Germany. I am having the preliminary standard translated! andi will send it to you as' soon as the translation has been completedl. I shall also let you have the translation, in due'course of the text of the final agreement, as soon as this has been signed by all concerned. When we spoke to each other on the telephone I also brisfly informed y'ou of the reasons why BeA•T Hamburg,did not oppose the preliminary DIN standard and approved of the final agreement within the German industry. I should now like to briefly summarize these reasons: We have let ourselves be quided in, these measures not so mulch by legal or scientific aspects but, above al'l, by economic and! PR aspects. As you know, it was not too sur- prising for'us when our German competitors initiated~ pro- ceedings against us within a relatively short time after BAPtCLAYS' launch. In view of the excerience made in the other countries in which BARCLAYS was'launched we'had to - 2 -

1" t . Von den B•A-T Cigarettenfabriken GrnbH. A~ B,A.T,. 2 . B4n expect this. Neither was it for us entirely improbable that we would lose these proceedings, namely the injunction taken out against us in Cologne, in the first instance on the basis of the'decision of the Cologne Regional Court of the 11th December 1984. The decision of the Munich Regional Court of the 2oth November 1984 in the injunction proceedings there,s but also the reasoning in the Cologne'decision, indicated that, under the purely legal aspects and the scientific controversy about Blarclays, weh~ad, quite good chances in the endi in successfully countering all attacks. We decided, despite all this, as early as Januaz*y, not too exploit the legal venues but to take the path of an out of court settlement, above all, because the public dispute about Barclays, especially after the Cologne verdict.. had assumed proportions which would have ruined all further chances on the German market for the initially very success- fully launched brand. Our main objective thus had to be to end the public controversy about the cigarette'a's quickly as possible. This objective had to be subordinate to legal and other aspects. It was for this reason that we approved the first agreement of the 4th January and'the final agreement of the 11th April 1985j thiss in turn, obliges us to play a part in the drawing up of the preliminary DIN standard for cigarettes which are'channel-ventiliated. If you should' have any further questions in this connection, - please give me a ring. With kind regards Yours sincerely J ' i/', i _ joa,V-him Dreyer copy: Charly Martin Bob Sachs