Remexian Secures Twin Courtroom Victories in German Market Disputes
Excessive Tide’s just lately acquired German subsidiary, Remexian Pharma, has secured twin courtroom victories in opposition to rivals within the thriving German medical hashish market.
In September, we reported on an rising authorized dispute between Remexian and competitor Vayamed that erupted simply hours after Excessive Tide closed its €27.2m acquisition of a 51% stake within the German distributor.
Vayamed, by worldwide regulation agency Hogan Lovells, accused Remexian of violating Germany’s Medicines Act by advertising and marketing a number of hashish cultivars below single authorisation numbers, a apply Vayamed argued required separate approvals for every pressure.
The timing of the problem raised questions amongst trade insiders, with Excessive Tide CEO Raj Grover dismissing it as a coordinated assault designed to undermine the transaction.
He alleged that Remexian’s valuation was notably decrease multiples (roughly 1x gross sales and three.6x EBITDA) than many German hashish belongings had beforehand commanded, thus inflicting concern amongst these corporations that their valuations would undergo based mostly on this established precedent.
StratCann reported that on January 14, 2026, the Berlin Courtroom of Attraction partially granted an injunction in opposition to Vayamed, a part of German medical hashish agency Sanity Group.
Enterprise of Hashish has subsequently obtained the total 31-page ruling from the Berlin Courtroom of Attraction (Kammergericht Berlin), which states that Vayamed is prohibited from distributing 5 particular statements from its August 26, 2025 cease-and-desist letter to 3rd events, together with rivals and journalists.
The prohibited statements relate to Vayamed’s allegations that Remexian violated Germany’s Medicines Act (AMG) by advertising and marketing a number of hashish cultivars below single authorisation numbers.
In a major discovering, the courtroom categorized Vayamed’s statements as ‘Meinungsäußerungen’ (expressions of opinion) reasonably than factual claims topic to Germany’s strict defamation requirements. The courtroom discovered these statements represented ‘authorized assessments’ and ‘worth judgments’ about regulatory necessities reasonably than provable info.
Nevertheless, the courtroom dominated that distributing these opinions to 3rd events earlier than even serving the cease-and-desist letter to Remexian itself constituted illegal disparagement below Part 4 #1 of Germany’s Unfair Competitors Act (UWG).
Nevertheless, the ruling explicitly avoids figuring out whether or not Remexian’s precise enterprise practices adjust to German pharmaceutical regulation. The courtroom famous that Vayamed’s cease-and-desist letter didn’t clarify ‘from which concrete circumstances’ the alleged lack of correct authorisation was derived.
The courtroom additionally rejected Remexian’s claims in opposition to two statements made by Sanity Group CEO Finn Hänsel in a StratCann article, discovering these both too imprecise to represent disparagement or adequately balanced by Remexian’s personal quoted response in the identical article.
Omar Khan, Chief Communications and Public Affairs Officer at Excessive Tide, informed Enterprise of Hashish: “The Berlin Courtroom of Attraction took a cautious strategy in its ruling and prevented making a remaining name on whether or not the disputed statements had been info or opinions. As a substitute, it discovered that the statements seemed to be opinions and had been defamatory and subsequently not permitted.
“Importantly, the Courtroom stated the allegations had been made on an unclear factual foundation — that means they weren’t backed by proof. The warning letter failed to obviously clarify what licenses Remexian holds or why Vayamed believed these licenses didn’t enable the advertising and marketing of various strains.
“In a associated case involving Demecan, the Berlin District Courtroom went additional and located that the underlying allegations had been factually false, not simply imprecise or unproven. We consider that the ruling also needs to be taken into consideration.
“Whereas cease-and-desist orders don’t all the time record corrective steps intimately, they require false statements to be withdrawn and corrected. This consists of eradicating revealed claims and taking steps to make sure third events don’t proceed to repeat them.”
Vayamed was ordered to bear 80% of the enchantment continuing prices, with Remexian bearing 20%.
An earlier ruling from Berlin Regional Courtroom in October 2025 discovered that Remexian had credibly demonstrated its merchandise had been authorised, noting that authorisations referred to hashish flowers with particular THC and CBD content material reasonably than particular cultivars. Nevertheless, that ruling additionally doesn’t represent a remaining willpower of the regulatory query.
In a separate authorized case, Remexian additionally went on the offensive in opposition to Germany’s booming telemedicine platforms
Whereas defending itself from competitor assaults, Remexian has additionally gone on the offensive in opposition to telemedicine platforms it accuses of illegal promoting and gross sales practices.
In early December, the Hamburg Regional Courtroom granted Remexian a preliminary injunction in opposition to Dr Ansay Ltd.
The 146-page ruling recognized 9 particular violations of Germany’s Medicines Promoting Act, together with presenting hashish merchandise in an internet store format, promoting THC edibles in newsletters, and brazenly promoting sick notes.
“Our motivation stems from the present political local weather,” Stefan Adomeit, Remexian’s co-managing director, informed German media. “As a wholesaler of medical hashish, it is very important us that telemedicine is obtainable inside the present guidelines.”
The injunction prohibits the platform from promoting prescription-only medicines to most people, sustaining marketplace-style product pages that spotlight psychoactive results, and brokering prescriptions by on-line questionnaires reasonably than phone or video consultations.
Nevertheless, enforcement is proving troublesome. As a result of Dr Ansay is registered in Malta, the Hamburg courtroom should serve the injunction there, a course of that has delayed motion.
