Company: Diageo
Breach: No
Final Decision: 14 June 2002

Considered under the 2nd Edition of the Code.

Complaint summary

“The product does not, by means of its naming and labelling, make it sufficiently clear that it is of an alcoholic nature and could be confused with nonalcoholic drinks, in particular fruit flavoured mineral waters.”


Member of the public, Devon.


Under Code paragraph 3.1(a)

The brand name, product descriptor, packaging (including any containers and any external wrapping), labelling and point of sale materials of any alcoholic drink should not in any direct or indirect way suggest any confusion as to the alcoholic nature and strength of the product, gut should clearly communicate the alcoholic nature of the product and its strength to the purchaser or consumer.


Under Code paragraphs 3.2(i), (a) and (b)

(i) Unless the overall appearance of the product is clearly one of adult appeal, the name or descriptor of a pre-packaged alcoholic drink/mixer combination:

(a) should, wherever appropriate, specify by its common name the type of alcohol used as an ingredient (for example, “rum and cola”, “vodka and lemonade”); and

(b) the common name of the alcoholic ingredient shall be prominent in terms of colour, style of lettering and field of vision.


The Panel’s assessment

In the Panels view, the alcoholic nature and strength of the product were clearly communicated as required by paragraph 3.1(a). The word schnappsadjacent to the word aqua on the front of the bottle and the alcohol by volume statement were, in the Panels view, clearly discernible. The unit information on the neck of the bottle helped further to communicate the alcoholic nature of the product

The shape of the bottle was clearly that of an alcoholic drink and, unlike the bottles commonly used for mineral waters, the Archers Aqua bottle had a metal cap of the type generally used for alcoholic drinks.Hence the Panel did not uphold the complaint under paragraph 3.1(a).

The Panel considered that the overall appearance of the product was clearly one of adult appeal. Further, the common name of the alcoholic ingredient, schnappswas specified and was sufficiently prominent not to offend against paragraphs 3.2 (a) or (b). Hence the Panel did not uphold the complaint under paragraph 3.2(i), (a) or (b)

Action by company

No action required.