Franz Haas claims against Winebow advance in KRIS distribution dispute

From distribution agreement to litigation

Winebow began distributing Italian producer Franz Haas’s KRIS wines in 2006 and obtained a 49% interest in 2 KRIS trademarks. An Italian arbitration award issued in 2023 declared that the supply agreement had been dissolved on 24 October 2021. It nevertheless required Winebow to sell the remaining inventory and to stop presenting itself as the exclusive importer once all the products had been sold.¹

Franz Haas alleges that Winebow subsequently slowed inventory sales, obstructed replacement distribution and continued to claim exclusivity. According to the producer, this conduct cost it national accounts including Walmart, Sam’s Club and Olive Garden. These assertions remain allegations requiring proof.¹

The district court’s ruling

In Franz Haas GmbH/srl v. Winebow, Inc., No. 2:25-CV-05766-JLS, Judge Staton of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ruled on 3 August 2026 that the claims for interference with prospective economic advantage and false advertising could proceed. She dismissed the contractual-interference and trademark-infringement claims without prejudice, allowing Franz Haas to try to correct its pleading.¹

The court questioned an interpretation that would permit Winebow to retain the remaining inventory for as long as it wished. It considered whether the award required sales under the same standard used previously, but left the interpretation of Italian law unresolved. Judge Staton also characterized Winebow’s out-of-context reliance on an earlier Franz Haas filing as disingenuous.¹

The trademark claim encountered a separate problem. The court found that the agreement contained no automatic reversion clause and that Franz Haas had not adequately alleged a transfer back to it of Winebow’s trademark interest. In addressing the false-advertising allegations, the court said the claimed exclusive-importer status suggested that Winebow was presenting itself as the only importer from which the wine could be obtained.¹

Appeal and wider contractual issues

While the district-court action was pending, Winebow appealed the federal confirmation of the arbitration award. In a March 2026 memorandum, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected its objections concerning documents and translations, affirmed the judgment and ordered briefing on sanctions. The panel said sophisticated litigants should know not to consume judicial or opposing-party resources with spurious arguments.¹

The dispute illustrates the importance of defining the transition after termination: the sales effort and account service required while inventory remains, reporting and payment duties, continued supply and marketing support, the duration of any sell-off period, inventory return or repurchase, and the trademark permissions needed for authorized sales. Agreements can also state how challenges, compensation disputes and interim relief affect the handover without treating continued performance or payment as a waiver.¹

The source proposes, as an example rather than a term governing this case, a 60-day period for selling lawfully held, saleable inventory after termination, subject to any longer period required by law. It also notes that UCC § 1-304 imposes good-faith duties within the Code’s scope and that UCC § 2-306(2), unless the parties agree otherwise, requires best efforts by the seller to supply goods and by the buyer to promote them in lawful exclusive-dealing arrangements. Those provisions do not independently extend an agreement after lawful termination.¹

Clear exit provisions can separately identify ownership, licences and limited permissions; set quality controls, revocation conditions and transfer mechanisms; and establish deadlines for correcting websites, distributor listings and social-media statements. They can also cover domains, administrative access, recovery credentials and marketing materials, while ensuring that any authorized inventory-sales period retains the permissions necessary to market the wine.¹