Remexian Secures Dual Court Victories in German Market Disputes

High Tide’s recently acquired German subsidiary, Remexian Pharma, has secured dual court victories against competitors in the thriving German medical cannabis market. 

In September, we reported on an emerging legal dispute between Remexian and competitor Vayamed that erupted just hours after High Tide closed its €27.2m acquisition of a 51% stake in the German distributor. 

Vayamed, through international law firm Hogan Lovells, accused Remexian of violating Germany’s Medicines Act by marketing multiple cannabis cultivars under single authorisation numbers, a practice Vayamed argued required separate approvals for each strain. 

The timing of the challenge raised questions among industry insiders, with High Tide CEO Raj Grover dismissing it as a coordinated attack designed to undermine the transaction. 

He alleged that Remexian’s valuation was notably lower multiples (roughly 1x sales and 3.6x EBITDA) than many German cannabis assets had previously commanded, thus causing concern among these firms that their valuations would suffer based on this established precedent. 

StratCann reported that on January 14, 2026, the Berlin Court of Appeal partially granted an injunction against Vayamed, part of German medical cannabis firm Sanity Group. 

Business of Cannabis has subsequently obtained the full 31-page ruling from the Berlin Court of Appeal (Kammergericht Berlin), which states that Vayamed is prohibited from distributing five specific statements from its August 26, 2025 cease-and-desist letter to third parties, including competitors and journalists.

The prohibited statements relate to Vayamed’s allegations that Remexian violated Germany’s Medicines Act (AMG) by marketing multiple cannabis cultivars under single authorisation numbers. 

In a significant finding, the court classified Vayamed’s statements as ‘Meinungsäußerungen’ (expressions of opinion) rather than factual claims subject to Germany’s strict defamation standards. The court found these statements represented ‘legal assessments’ and ‘value judgments’ about regulatory requirements rather than provable facts. 

However, the court ruled that distributing these opinions to third parties before even serving the cease-and-desist letter to Remexian itself constituted unlawful disparagement under Section 4 Number 1 of Germany’s Unfair Competition Act (UWG).

However, the ruling explicitly avoids determining whether Remexian’s actual business practices comply with German pharmaceutical law. The court noted that Vayamed’s cease-and-desist letter did not make clear ‘from which concrete circumstances’ the alleged lack of proper authorisation was derived. 

The court also rejected Remexian’s claims against two statements made by Sanity Group CEO Finn Hänsel in a StratCann article, finding these either too vague to constitute disparagement or adequately balanced by Remexian’s own quoted response in the same article.

Omar Khan, Chief Communications and Public Affairs Officer at High Tide, told Business of Cannabis: “The Berlin Court of Appeal took a cautious approach in its ruling and avoided making a final call on whether the disputed statements were facts or opinions. Instead, it found that the statements appeared to be opinions and were defamatory and therefore not permitted.

“Importantly, the Court said the allegations were made on an unclear factual basis — meaning they were not backed by evidence. The warning letter failed to clearly explain what licenses Remexian holds or why Vayamed believed those licenses did not allow the marketing of different strains.

“In a related case involving Demecan, the Berlin District Court went further and found that the underlying allegations were factually false, not just vague or unproven. We believe that the ruling should also be taken into account.

“While cease-and-desist orders do not always list corrective steps in detail, they require false statements to be withdrawn and corrected. This includes removing published claims and taking steps to ensure third parties do not continue to repeat them.”

Vayamed was ordered to bear 80% of the appeal proceeding costs, with Remexian bearing 20%. 

An earlier ruling from Berlin Regional Court in October 2025 found that Remexian had credibly demonstrated its products were authorised, noting that authorisations referred to cannabis flowers with specific THC and CBD content rather than specific cultivars. However, that ruling also does not constitute a final determination of the regulatory question.

In a separate legal case, Remexian also went on the offensive against Germany’s booming telemedicine platforms

While defending itself from competitor attacks, Remexian has also gone on the offensive against telemedicine platforms it accuses of unlawful advertising and sales practices.

In early December, the Hamburg Regional Court granted Remexian a preliminary injunction against Dr Ansay Ltd. 

The 146-page ruling identified nine specific violations of Germany’s Medicines Advertising Act, including presenting cannabis products in an online shop format, advertising THC edibles in newsletters, and openly selling sick notes.

“Our motivation stems from the current political climate,” Stefan Adomeit, Remexian’s co-managing director, told German media. “As a wholesaler of medical cannabis, it is important to us that telemedicine is offered within the existing rules.”

The injunction prohibits the platform from advertising prescription-only medicines to the general public, maintaining marketplace-style product pages that highlight psychoactive effects, and brokering prescriptions through online questionnaires rather than telephone or video consultations.

However, enforcement is proving difficult. Because Dr Ansay is registered in Malta, the Hamburg court must serve the injunction there, a process that has delayed action.