Earlier this year, UK alcohol regulator, the Portman Group, commissioned a proactive independent audit, carried out by Zenith Global, to measure responsible marketing across the alcoholic drinks market.
Accordingly, Zenith Global, brought complaints against a small number of products from a selection of 500 alcoholic drinks in the UK market, which were assessed against the Portman Group’s Code of Practice on Naming, Packaging and Promotion of Alcoholic Drinks.
The most recent complaints considered by the Independent Complaints Panel (the Panel) were against Sazerac’s Burst Blue Raspberry, Brewdog’s Lucky Break and Beavertown’s Lupuloid. Following careful consideration, the three complaints were not upheld, the full decisions can be read here.
All three of the cases were considered under Code Rule 3.2(h) which states that a product cannot have a particular appeal to under-18s.
The auditor raised concerns that Burst Blue Raspberry resembled a soft drink by using bright colours and a flavour that could appeal to under-18’s. The Panel noted that although the colour and flavour were fairly common in confectionary items which were popular with children, it was also well-established in adult targeted products including alcohol. In addition to this, the label clearly stated the alcoholic nature of the drink and did not use any font or imagery which might have a particular appeal to under-18s. Taking all these aspects into account, the complaint was not upheld.
The complaint against Brewdog’s Lucky Break highlighted that it featured an image of a Japanese lucky cat, often associated with cartoons and pop culture, which combined with bold colours could appeal to those under-18. After considering the packaging in its entirety, the Panel concluded that while the illustrated cat was the dominant theme on the front of the label, it was recognisable as an adult-orientated maneki-neko cat and had been depicted in a mature, adult-style. The Panel therefore concluded that the packaging did not have a particular appeal to under-18s and the complaint was not upheld.
Finally, the Panel considered Zenith Global’s complaint against Beavertown’s Lupuloid which it believed had a strong appeal to children as it featured a bright green monster and amusing product name. The Panel considered that while the overall impression was close to the line of acceptability, the complex art style was detailed and sophisticated in nature. In addition to this, there were no distinguishable or cute characters which ensured the product conveyed an abstract style of design targeted at adults. On this basis, the Panel concluded that the packaging did not have a particular appeal to under-18s and did not uphold the complaint.
Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Rachel Childs, said: “All three of these decisions show how creative and innovative marketing can exist while remaining compliant under the Code. While some can be close to the line of acceptability, all three producers had considered Portman Group guidance and the products were found not to have a particular appeal to under-18s”.
Producer:
Beavertown Brewery
Complainant:
Zenith Global Commercial Ltd (as part of the independent proactive audit of the Naming and Packaging of Alcoholic Drinks Code, Sixth Edition Amended)
Complaint:
“An illustrated bright green monster character is featured on the can surrounded by flying rockets, one of which the monster has caught. There is a quirky font used and an amusing name; it is a design that would have a strong appeal to children as the colours are bright and the design is fun and interesting”.
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 3.2(h)
A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way have a particular appeal to under-18s. A producer must not allow the placement of brand names, logos or trademarks on merchandise which has a particular appeal to under-18s or is intended for use primarily by under-18s
NOT UPHELD
The company’s submission
The company confirmed its continued adherence to the Portman Group’s Code and emphasised its commitment to responsible alcohol marketing. The company highlighted its compliance across multiple Codes which covered packaging, online presence and out-of-home advertising, with clear warnings, alcoholic product clarity and use of Drinkaware logos.
While supporting the intent behind an independent audit, the company raised concerns about the self-generated complaint and stated that the audit’s subjective approach failed to consider its brand holistically. The company pointed out that its premium pricing strategy targeted a mature, beer-appreciating demographic and avoided cheap marketing tactics. The company reiterated its alignment with Heineken’s best practice guidelines which included alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) labelling, depiction of alcohol units and alcohol health-related information.
The company expressed surprise that the audit focused on a beer, Lupuloid, which had been on the market for nearly 10 years without a public complaint or evidence of appeal to underage drinkers. The company clarified that its marketing targeted adults, which was supported by demographic data and accolades for its designs. The company refuted the auditors’ claims about its artwork and messaging, arguing that the criticisms were based on narrow subjective judgements.
The company addressed specific design elements in detail:
- The “bright green monster character” was described as a mature, complex illustration inspired by hops, appealing to sci-fi and graphic novel enthusiasts.
- The “quirky font” was explained as a hand-drawn sans-serif font integrated with the company’s brand artwork and was not peculiar or unexpected.
- The name “Lupuloid” was derived from the Latin name for hops, with no evidence of it being amusing or problematic.
- The beer’s design, featuring detailed space imagery, was inspired by age-appropriate references such as Starship Troopers and The Alien Trilogy, which were all rated 18+.
The company emphasised its 15-year tenure as industry leaders in design, reflected by its growth and subsequent sale to Heineken. The company argued that its hand-drawn illustrations and intellectually stimulating concepts differentiated it from competitors without appealing to underage drinkers. The company highlighted that its Brand Power Score demonstrated its success in the “difference” category.
The company reiterated its proven adherence to the Portman Group’s Code and its serious approach to the issue. The company stated that it had found no evidence to support the auditors’ claims that its design was problematic and argued that the absence of evidence indicated there was no issue. The company committed to continuing its due diligence to maintain high standards while refuting the auditors’ view as a misconception.
The Panel’s assessment
The Panel considered whether the packaging could have a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant. The Panel assessed the packaging which included an illustration of a large green monster which had multiple rockets flying behind it in a pink sky. The Panel noted that the design was clearly inspired by science fiction (sci-fi) and discussed whether it would have a particular appeal to under-18s as a genre. The Panel discussed the producer’s response and acknowledged that there were multiple sci-fi stories that were aimed at adults, such as Starship Troopers or the Alien franchise and noted that the genre was well-established with a strong appeal to adults. The Panel also discussed previous precedent relating to Beavertown’s sci-fi artwork style and considered that in the case of Gamma Ray it had not been found to have a particular appeal to under-18s but noted that the discussion had carefully considered whether it could have inadvertent appeal. On balance, the Panel considered that while sci-fi had a broad appeal to all ages, it nonetheless had the capacity to particularly appeal to under-18s in some circumstances depending on the elements that featured in a product’s design. Therefore, while a sci-fi themed beer was not inherently problematic under the Code, compliance would be determined by the overall impression conveyed by the drink’s packaging in its entirety.
The Panel considered the imagery in more detail and discussed the large monster-like creature which featured in a prominent position on the front label. The Panel noted that the monster was indistinguishable as a character, with no features that readily identified it as a personified being. The Panel discussed its appearance and noted that the presentation appeared as though it had an ‘oozing’ consistency which did bear a level of resemblance to ‘slime’ or ‘putty’ toys which remained popular with primary-aged school children. The Panel discussed the company’s response that the monster was a reference to the hops of the beer but considered that the intended connection to hops was not necessarily obvious. On balance, the Panel considered that while the monster did have some ‘slime’ resemblance, it had been designed so that it was an indistinguishable character, with no recognisable features that would potentially appeal to children. The Panel noted that children tended to be drawn to characters which were friendly, welcoming and had simple designs. In this case, the Panel considered that the monster did not have any facial features, nor did it appear welcoming or friendly which meant that it presented as an abstract concept that was less enticing to under-18s.
The Panel noted that there were multiple rockets flying in the sky, drawn in a classic three-winged oval shape. The Panel noted that the rockets bore some similarity to how rockets were depicted in children’s cartoons and considered that it was a design element that could resonate with under-18s. The Panel discussed space rockets more broadly and acknowledged that they were a feature that also appeared in nostalgic sci-fi themes which meant that they did not inherently have a particular appeal to under-18s. The Panel noted that the rockets were quite small in size and were not particularly prominent comparatively to the abstract monster, nor were they outlined in thick bold lines which could catch the attention of children.
The Panel then considered the colour scheme, noting that the packaging employed bright colours of green, orange and pink. The Panel noted that colours with high levels of luminesce tended to have more appeal to under-18s as opposed to colour schemes which had less contrast between the individual colours. The Panel discussed this point and noted that while the colours used were bright, they did not have an elevated level of contrast. Given that was the case, the Panel considered that while the use of colours in this instance was bright and vibrant, the reduced contrast and avoidance of primary colours meant the artwork presented as more adult-like in nature. The Panel discussed the hand drawn illustrative style and noted that while black lines were used, the art style itself was busy and complex which ensured that it presented as a multifaceted artistic illustration instead of a simplistic childlike cartoon. Taking the above into account, the Panel stated that the overall impression conveyed was more akin to an adult graphic novel than a children’s cartoon which tended to use simpler designs, contrasting primary colours and friendly characters.
The Panel discussed the company’s response that the name ‘Lupuloid’ was intended as a reference to the Latin name for hops. The Panel noted that it was unlikely that the average consumer would recognise the Latin basis of the word but considered that the name was unlikely to have a particular appeal to under-18s on the basis that it was not a recognisable word or overly childish as a made-up word. The Panel considered that the name was presented in a font style which was hand-drawn with mostly straight-lined edges and was in keeping with the wider Beavertown font style, which fans of the brand would recognise. The Panel therefore did not consider that either the font or the name would have a particular appeal to under-18s.
The Panel discussed at length whether the design elements could have a particular appeal to under-18s when considered in combination, with careful consideration given to the inclusion of the sci-fi theme, the illustrated imagery and use of bright colours, all of which in some circumstances could have a strong appeal to under-18s. However, the Panel considered that while the overall impression conveyed by the packaging was close to the line of acceptability, the complex art style was detailed and sophisticated in nature, with a colour palette that did not employ strong contrasting colours or high luminance levels. In addition to this, there were no distinguishable or cute characters which ensured the product conveyed an abstract style of design targeted at adults. On this basis, the Panel concluded that the packaging did not have a particular appeal to under-18s and did not uphold the complaint under Code rule 3.2(h).
Action by Company:
None required.
Producer:
BrewDog
Complainant:
Zenith Global Commercial Ltd (as part of the independent proactive audit of the Naming and Packaging of Alcoholic Drinks Code, Sixth Edition Amended)
Complaint:
“This product has a particular appeal to under-18s due to its bright, playful design and the inclusion of a maneki-neko (Japanese lucky cat), which is often associated with toys, cartoons, and pop culture rather than alcohol. The colour scheme – featuring bold blues, yellows, and purples – combined with the cute and animated-style cat, makes the product look more like a soft drink or an energy drink rather than an alcoholic beverage”.
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 3.2(h)
A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way have a particular appeal to under-18s. A producer must not allow the placement of brand names, logos or trademarks on merchandise which has a particular appeal to under-18s or is intended for use primarily by under-18s.
NOT UPHELD
The company’s submission
The company stated that it had taken its compliance obligations seriously during the product’s development and expressed confidence that the product adhered to relevant standards. The company highlighted its strong brand awareness in the UK, citing a 2023 YouGov survey which reflected 87% consumer recognition. The company explained that Lucky Break was a new offering launched in August 2024, developed with significant resources and financial investment. The product had been well received since it had launched and there had been no complaints suggesting it appealed to children. The company explained that after receiving the current complaint that it had conducted a survey through Vypr which revealed that 87.38% of participants believed the product was aimed at over-18s.
The company clarified that the design of Lucky Break, including the use of the maneki-neko (Japanese lucky cat) and the chosen colour scheme, was carefully crafted t reflect cultural elements associated with luck and good fortune, rather than to attract the interest of under-18s. The company highlighted that the maneki-neko was a widely recognised symbol of good fortune, commonly used in various adult-oriented contexts.
The company referred to the Portman Group’s guidance, which specified that the test for “particular appeal” was not about the quantity of appeal (i.e., appealing to more under-18s than over-18s) but rather the nature of the appeal and whether the packaging or promotion resonated with under-18s in a way it did not with over-18s. The company highlighted that while marketing elements may appeal to individuals in a target market, the rule was designed to capture features that were likely to have a specific appeal to under-18s.
The company argued that its product, a New England India Pale Ale (NEIPA) beer, was clearly identified as an alcoholic beverage on its packaging, which featured a 440ml can, a format not typically associated with drinks aimed at under-18s. The packaging prominently displayed “NE IPA” alongside BrewDog branding, a well-recognised beer brand in the UK, further reinforcing its association with beer. The company stated that the product contained no flavourings which would appeal to children and asserted that the maneki-neko character on the packaging was designed to target adults, symbolising luck and good fortune.
The company emphasised that the character was deliberately styled to avoid appealing to under-18s. The cat had been designed with a silver and white colour palette with blank, non-cartoonish eyes, occupied a small area of the can and differed significantly from characters previously deemed to breach the Portman Group’s Code. The company explained that the muted colours of the character and background, along with BrewDog’s standard font, were chosen to ensure the product did not stand out as particularly bright or appealing to children, especially when placed alongside other craft beers with similar illustrative designs.
The company stated that the product’s name, “Lucky Break,” held no particular relevance for children and highlighted that illustrative designs were common in the craft beer category. It referenced a previous Panel ruling on Beavertown’s Neck Oil product, which was found not to breach the same provision, to support its position that the packaging was consistent with industry norms.
The company highlighted that it had marketed and sold the product in the UK for eight months without receiving complaints about any potential appeal to under-18s. Market data showed that the primary consumer base consisted of adults aged 25-45, with minimal engagement from under-18s, which the company explained supported its position that the product did not particularly appeal to this age group.
The company explained that the product was sold across the United Kingdom through the company’s website, bars, and licenced retailers. The website was age-gated, and bars and retail partners strictly adhered to age verification laws. Additionally, the company explained that the product was stocked exclusively in alcohol aisles, reducing visibility to under-18s.
The company concluded that, in its view, the product complied with the Code and did not breach rule 3.2(h). It requested the Panel to consider the cultural significance of the design elements, market data and recent research findings in its decision. The company expressed its commitment to responsible marketing and willingness to engage in further discussions to resolve the matter amicably.
The Panel’s assessment
The Panel considered whether the packaging could have a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant. The Panel assessed the front label which included the prominent depiction of a cat which had one arm raised while the other held a coin. The Panel discussed the company’s response that the cat was intended to depict maneki-neko, a common Japanese cat figurine believed to bring good luck to the owner. The Panel noted that maneki-neko had historical roots in Japanese folklore and was typically owned by those seeking good fortune. The Panel considered that the figures were commonly found in Japanese establishments within the UK but also appeared in popular culture to the extent that they would be recognisable to most adults. The Panel noted that the maneki-neko’s typical use therefore suggested that their target demographic was adults and that the desire for good luck would have a strong appeal across all age groups. The Panel discussed that while the maneki-neko had roots in eastern Asia, it was fairly common in the UK to the point that the average consumer would likely recognise the cat on the packaging as being a maneki-neko. This was further reinforced by the product name ‘Lucky Break’ and the use of the colour purple on the cat’s collar, a colour associated with good luck. With that in mind, the Panel considered that the inclusion of the maneki-neko did not particularly resonate with under-18s in and of itself.
The Panel considered the depiction of the cat in more detail, noting the cartoon-like style and use of thick bold key lines. The Panel discussed these elements and discussed the Portman Group’s accompanying guidance for Code rule 3.2(h) which stated that such design features could contribute to a certain level of appeal for children. However, the Panel noted that while the character was cartoon-like, it did not have particularly friendly or welcoming features that children would find engaging. The Panel considered that while the cat had large prominent eyes, it did not have pupils which subsequently gave a blank statuesque appearance to the cat in contrast to characters that might be used in children’s media. The Panel further noted that the lack of pupils gave the cat a foreboding look which young children in particular may find off-putting or even frightening. The Panel discussed the product colour palette which was predominately yellow, blue, purple and white and noted that while there was a level of contrast, the colours were all desaturated which reduced their vibrancy on the packaging and overall level of luminesce.
After considering the packaging in its entirety, the Panel concluded that while the illustrated cat was the dominant theme on the front of the label, it was recognisable as an adult-orientated maneki-neko cat and had been depicted in a mature, adult-style. The Panel therefore concluded that the packaging did not have a particular appeal to under-18s and the complaint was not upheld.
Action by Company:
None required.
Producer:
Sazerac UK Limited
Complainant:
Zenith Global Commercial Ltd (as part of the independent proactive audit of the Naming and Packaging of Alcoholic Drinks Code, Sixth Edition Amended)
Complaint:
“At first glance, the product resembles a squash or soft drink, which has a particular appeal to under-18s. While the label clearly states alcohol, the font, colours, and overall design are likely to appeal to teenagers, which should raise concerns”.
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 3.2(h)
3.2(h) A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way have a particular appeal to under-18s. A producer must not allow the placement of brand names, logos or trademarks on merchandise which has a particular appeal to under-18s or is intended for use primarily by under-18s
NOT UPHELD
The company’s submission
The company explained that it was a wholly owned subsidiary of Sazerac Company, Inc., one of the world’s largest distilled spirits companies, owning brands such as Southern Comfort and Buffalo Trace. The company highlighted its nearly 400-year history as a family-owned business with strong cultural foundations of integrity, trust, ethics and values, emphasising its close connections to the communities it served. The company stated that it had taken its obligations under the Code seriously and carefully considered the complaint, concluding that the complaint was not well-founded and could not be upheld, as Burst Blue Raspberry did not have any particular appeal to under-18s.
The company explained that Burst Blue Raspberry had been introduced to its product line in October 2020, manufactured in the United States and sold in the UK through licensed premises and retail outlets. It described the product as a raspberry fruit-flavoured liqueur intended to be consumed in small measures for a tart, refreshing taste, with its blue colour distinguishing it from other red fruit flavours such as strawberry and watermelon. The company added that the drink was part of a range of fruit-flavoured liqueurs under the “Burst” brand, developed to meet market demand for sweeter-tasting, lower ABV liqueurs catering to customers seeking better-tasting, lower-alcohol spirit drinks.
The company argued that Burst Blue Raspberry was neither labelled nor marketed to have any particular appeal to under-18s, emphasising that it was clearly identifiable as an alcoholic beverage. The company pointed out that the front label prominently displayed the wording “ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE WITH FRUIT FLAVOURING” and “Alcohol 15% vol” with similar information repeated on the back label alongside statutory alcohol product labelling. The company disagreed with the assertion that the product resembled a squash or soft drink at first glance, stating that even minimal attention to the packaging would reveal its alcoholic nature.
The company rejected the notion that the drink’s bright blue colour had a particular appeal to under-18s and explained that blue raspberry had been a recognised food colouring for over 60 years and was used to distinguish raspberry from other red fruit flavours. It noted that other well-known alcohol brands also used bright blue colouring.
Regarding the font used on the label, the company stated that it was designed to emphasise the brand name “Burst” and the flavour, using clear and uncluttered designs without child-like or playful elements. The company explained that the colours, explosive design and raspberry imagery were intended to highlight the product’s characteristics as a fruit-flavoured liqueur and appeal to adult customers seeking a fresh, fruity drink. The company added that the design was consistent with the brand and similar to other alcohol products using bright colours to emphasise fruit flavours.
The company rejected the assertion that bright labelling would appeal to teenagers and explained that the packaging clearly identified the product as alcoholic and was designed to reflect its characteristics. The company argued that finding bright colours inherently appealing to under-18s would be unreasonable and would implicate a wide range of alcohol products across the market.
The company argued that a breach of rule 3.2(h) of the Code required the Panel to be satisfied that Burst Blue Raspberry had a “particular appeal” to under-18s. It stated that the complaint had not identified any such appeal, emphasising that the packaging and labelling were designed to reflect the product’s characteristics and appeal to adult customers seeking a fruit-flavoured liqueur. The company highlighted that similar packaging designs were widely used across the spirits market, demonstrating their appeal to adult consumers. The company concluded that there was no basis to determine that the product had any particular appeal to under-18s and, therefore, no breach of rule 3.2(h) of the Code had occurred.
The Panel’s assessment
The Panel considered whether the packaging could have a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant. The Panel first discussed the drink’s flavour ‘blue raspberry’ and noted that the flavour was fairly common in sweets and confectionery items which were popular with children, but that it was also a flavour that was well-established in adult-targeted products including alcohol. The Panel discussed previous precedent cases and noted that a sweet flavour in isolation was unlikely to have a particular appeal to under-18s under the Code. Instead, while a sweet flavour could contribute to the level of appeal a label might have to under-18s, it should be considered as one factor in the context of the overall impression conveyed by the packaging in its entirety.
The Panel then considered the imagery used on the label in more detail. The Panel noted the inclusion of raspberries which were realistic depictions of the fruit and were clearly intended to be representative of the drink’s flavour. As the raspberries were not cartoon-like or anthropomorphic, the Panel considered they would not have a particular appeal to under-18s as fruit and recognised that fruit flavours broadly appealed to all ages. The Panel noted that the predominant word ‘Burst’ was used on the front, back and neck of the label and discussed whether there was any similarity between the drink’s name and that of soft drinks like ‘fruit burst’. The Panel noted that there were several positive alcohol cues on the packaging such as the drink’s alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) and the phrase ‘alcoholic beverage’ prominently positioned in a clearly visible white font. The Panel considered that the packaging was typical of a spirit drink in a 700ml bottle and as such it bore little resemblance to soft drinks targeted at children which created a separation between the packaging and drinks aimed at under-18s. Furthermore, the Panel noted that the majority of the font used on the packaging employed straight edge lines which overall presented as more adult-like. The Panel considered that while ‘Burst’ may have a level of appeal to under-18s, on balance, the drink’s label was fairly simplistic in design. It had few colours, mainly pink and blue, including the liquid which was visible through the glass and while the colours were bright, the colour palette was limited and not highly contrasting. The Panel considered that these elements, alone or combined, would not be sufficient to cause the packaging to have a particular appeal to under-18s in this case.
Taking the above points into account, the Panel concluded that the straight-lined font, simplistic design and realistic depictions of fruit meant that the overall impression conveyed by the packaging was adult and mature. The Panel concluded that the drink did not have a particular appeal to under-18s and accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).
Action by Company:
None required.
Producer:
Põhjala Brewing AS
Complainant:
Zenith Global Commercial Ltd (2025 Independent Proactive Audit of the Naming and Packaging of Alcoholic Drinks Code, Sixth Edition (Amended)
Complaint:
“Product is in a 330ml soft drinks can and the front design has minimal text with product name only. It is in only when the back of the can is read it’s clear it is alcoholic with very small wording for ‘Beer’ and the vol % slightly larger”.
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 3.1 The alcoholic nature of a drink should be communicated on its packaging with absolute clarity
UPHELD
The company’s submission
The company appreciated the opportunity to address the concerns about the packaging of the drink and explained that Heli Imperial Gose was a small-batch, barrel-aged specialty craft beer targeted at enthusiasts within the premium beer segment. It was distributed through specialty alcoholic product channels like bottle shops, bars, and curated online platforms and was not available in mainstream soft drink contexts or UK supermarkets. The company acknowledged concerns about the minimal text on the front of the can but emphasised that the back of the can clearly included the word ‘Beer’ and the product’s alcoholic strength by volume (8%). The company also highlighted that the can included all legally required alcohol labelling as per Estonian and EU regulations and met export compliance criteria. The company explained that in Estonia, all alcoholic beverages were required to be registered on the Estonian Alcohol Register which involved a review of packaging and labelling elements by national authorities to ensure compliance with local laws on alcohol visibility and responsible presentation. The company confirmed that Heli Imperial Gose had been reviewed and approved by the Estonian Alcohol Register, validating that the packaging clearly communicated its alcoholic nature under national standards.
The company explained that the front-facing design of the product was minimal, reflecting a common aesthetic in the craft beer segment, particularly for specialty or barrel-aged releases. The intention of which was to communicate a refined, artisanal product rather than resemble a soft drink. The company stated that the product’s alcoholic nature was clarified through several elements: the high ABV (8%), which was uncommon for soft drinks; the inclusion of “Imperial Gose” in the name, a recognised beer style; and the 330ml can format, which was typical for craft beer and did not suggest a soft drink in the market context. Furthermore, the label prominently displayed the drink’s alcoholic strength of 8% in large, legible text on the upper-left corner. Beneath this, the word ‘BEER’ was clearly written in multiple languages. Additionally, the term ‘Imperial Gose,’ as both the product name and a recognised beer style, appeared in the description, contributing to clear communication of the product’s alcoholic nature. The company reviewed the similar cases of Yonder Pink Lemonade, Blossom Hill Spritz and Hello Kitty Pinot Noir and stated that Heli Imperial Gose differed significantly in intent and execution. The company explained that the drink’s muted, artistic design and labelling targeted an adult audience and did not include imagery or language which would appeal to children or mimic soft drink branding. The company highlighted that only 72 cans of the product had been sent to the UK as part of a one-off small batch release for specialist outlets and it was not distributed through mainstream retail as it was intended for a niche audience of craft beer enthusiasts. The company articulated its commitment to responsible marketing and expressed willingness to make minor adjustments to the front-can design in future print runs to better clarify the product’s alcoholic nature, while preserving its brand identity and design integrity.
The Panel’s assessment
The Panel discussed whether the packaging communicated the drink’s alcoholic nature with absolute clarity as raised by the complainant. The Panel first assessed the packaging, which incorporated a minimalist stylised design of a predominantly black background superimposed with green shapes that stretched around the majority of the can. The Panel noted that the front label did not include any positive alcoholic cues such as the legal name of the drink, alcoholic drink descriptors or the alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) but did have the company name ‘Põhjala’ presented clearly in white text within a white outlined box. The Panel considered that a company name would not be considered a positive alcoholic cue because consumers might be unfamiliar with the fact that the company was an alcoholic drinks producer and therefore may not associate the drink with alcohol. Given that the front label of the drink did not contain any references to alcohol, the Panel considered that it was difficult to determine what type of drink it was, particularly as the artwork was abstract and did not relate to beer in any overt or obvious way. However, the Panel also noted that mandatory legal information was not required to be presented on the front label either by law or under the Code and therefore it was important to assess the label in its entirety to determine compliance under Code rule 3.1. The Panel considered the back label of the drink and noted that there were some
positive alcohol cues such as the drink’s ABV, the word ‘beer’ in a number of different languages and the pregnancy warning logo. However, the Panel noted there was no other best practice information such as unit content information, the Chief Medical Officer’s low risk drinking guidelines or responsibility messaging. The Panel noted that while these points were not required under the Code, they were positive alcohol cues that UK consumers would be familiar with on alcohol packaging and therefore would help the drink to communicate its alcoholic nature. The Panel discussed the font size on the back of the can which was particularly small and noted that it was particularly difficult to read white text which had been overlayed on an iridescent pattern. The Panel noted that the largest font on the product, after the company name, was ‘Heli Imperial Gose’ on the side of the product which appeared above text describing the tasting notes of ‘sloe berries and lemon thyme’. The Panel considered that ‘gose’ was not a particularly well-known beer descriptor and would not necessarily be understood as a reference to alcohol in and of itself. The Panel noted that this was also compounded by the fruit flavour descriptors directly underneath it which would be more understood as flavours associated with a soft drink. The Panel discussed the producer’s response that only 72 cans had been sent to the UK and were intended for a niche audience of craft beer enthusiasts. The Panel sought to remind producers that the remit of the Code and its application applied solely to the product packaging as opposed to an assessment of how a product was retailed. Whilst the Panel acknowledged that some products could have a limited distribution, all products and companies were treated equally under the Code for regulatory consistency and fairness. The Panel therefore carefully considered whether the drink’s packaging had the capacity to cause consumer confusion taking the above points into account. When assessing the overall impression conveyed by the drink’s packaging, the Panel concluded that the minimalist front label, which was absent of any alcohol descriptors, combined with the fruit flavour descriptors, comparatively minimal references to alcohol, the drink name ‘Heli Imperial Gose’ which was not a well-known reference to beer in the UK and the difficult to read small white text overlayed on an iridescent label meant that, on balance, the drink did not communicate its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.1.
Action by Company:
Was limited edition.
A complaint against Chronic Cellars Space Doubt Zinfandel has been upheld by the alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel (ICP), the full decision can be read here.
The complaint, made by Zenith Global Commercial Ltd, as part of the Portman Group’s independent proactive audit of the UK market[1], raised concerns that the term ‘chronic’ was associated with high-strength marijuana and that the name Space Doubt, was a play on words sounding similar to ‘spaced out’ which had an association with drug taking.
The Panel also considered whether the name of the product, Space Doubt, alongside the name of the producer, Chronic Cellars, could be in breach of Code Rule 3.2(b)for creating an association with illegal behaviour.
The producer argued that the name ‘Chronic’ was surfer lingo meaning ‘the best’ and that the surfer slang reflected the founders’ passion for surfing and the idea of selecting the best grapes to create exceptional wines The producer also explained that the name ‘Space Doubt’ was created to reflect the complexity and wonderment of the world, encouraging moments of contemplation with the double meaning reflecting on vineyard row spacing during replanting.
The Panel considered the meaning of the word ‘chronic’ and noted that, whilst it had a number of meanings including ‘persistent’ and ‘the best’, it could also refer to strong cannabis. Given the number of ways ‘chronic’ could be interpreted, the Panel considered how the word was presented in the wider context of the rest of the packaging.
The Panel considered the front label, including the company name ‘Chronic Cellars’, a stylised image of a skeleton sitting on top of the Earth observing a planet and the brand name ‘Space Doubt’ alongside it. The Panel noted that the packaging was absent of any reference to surfing to give context to the intended meaning of ‘Chronic’ as explained by the producer. The Panel noted that the brand name ‘Space Doubt’ sounded phonetically like ‘spaced out’, a phrase commonly used to infer impairment due to the effects of illicit drugs.
The Panel considered all of the elements of the packaging including the word ‘chronic’ in the context of being ‘spaced out’ and the positioning of the skeleton, which was sitting cross-legged in a relaxed pose staring into space, and concluded that whilst each element could have been acceptable in isolation, taken together they gave an overall impression of an association with illicit drugs. The Panel also considered that because the packaging created an association with illicit drugs and alluded to the effects of cannabis use, the product packaging also indirectly created an association with illegal behaviour. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code Rules 3.2(c) and 3.2(b).
Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Rachel Childs, said: “This case highlights how important it is to consider the overall impression conveyed by a product’s name and labelling when assessing compliance under the Code. Elements that may be acceptable in isolation can take on a different meaning when combined together. It’s important that producers take this into account when choosing a product name and designing associated labelling.”
[1] Part of the independent proactive audit of the Naming and Packaging of Alcoholic Drinks Code, Sixth Edition Amended
Producer:
WX Brands
Complainant:
Zenith Global Commercial Ltd (as part of the independent proactive audit of the Naming and Packaging of Alcoholic Drinks Code, Sixth Edition Amended)
Complaint:
“The term “chronic” is associated with high-strength marijuana. The wine is named “Space Doubt” which is a clever play on words sounding very similar to ‘Spaced Out’, which has a strong association with drug taking. This, when added to the text on the label “Space Doubt is your resident guy in the sky,” adds more emphasis to the allusion to illicit drugs, as to be ‘spaced out’ or ‘in the sky’ are synonyms for getting high”.
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 3.2(b)
A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest any association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour
UPHELD
Under Code paragraph 3.2(c)
A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest any association with, acceptance of, or allusion to, illicit drugs.
UPHELD
The company’s submission
The company acknowledged the concerns raised by Zenith Global regarding its wine ‘Chronic Cellars Space Doubt’ and expressed its commitment to responsible alcohol marketing. The company emphasised its dedication to promoting responsible drinking by including the UK Chief Medical Officers’ drinking guidelines and alcohol unit information on back labels, along with promoting the Drinkaware website. The company explained that Chronic Cellars was founded in California in 2004 and was a brand committed to making high-quality wine with a playful and unconventional approach. The company added that as a brand it used Californian slang and humour as part of its identity.
The company explained that the name ‘Chronic’ had been registered in the UK and EU and was surfer lingo which meant ‘the best’. The surfer slang reflected the founders’ passion for surfing and the idea of selecting the best grapes to create exceptional wines. The brand name was intended to represent quality and creativity, independent of its illustrations.
The company then explained that the brand name ‘Space Doubt’ was created to reflect the complexity and wonderment of the world, encouraging moments of contemplation. The company stated that the name carried a double meaning, combining the idea of ‘spaced out’ wonderment and the physical spacing of elements, inspired by the founders’ reflections on vineyard row spacing during replanting. The company explained that its brand emphasised whimsy and avoided literal illustrations, aligning with Chronic Cellars’ playful approach to wine labelling.
The Panel’s assessment
3.2(c)
The Panel discussed whether the drink’s name or packaging suggested any association with, acceptance of, or allusion to, illicit drugs as raised by the complainant. The Panel first considered the meaning of the word ‘chronic’ and how it would be interpreted by a UK consumer. The Panel noted the company’s response which explained that ‘chronic’ was surfer dialect used in California, where the company was based, to communicate that something was ‘the best’. The Panel discussed that in the UK, ‘chronic’ had a number of meanings including ‘persistent’ in the context of a medical ailment and ‘the best’, albeit the latter definition was more likely to be used by a younger generation. The Panel noted that ‘chronic’ could also refer to strong cannabis and this definition was prevalent in some subsections of society but was not universal across the whole of the UK. Given the number of ways chronic could be interpreted, the Panel noted that it was important to consider how the word was presented in the wider context of the rest of the packaging.
The Panel considered the front label which included the company name ‘Chronic Cellars’, a stylised image of a skeleton sitting on top of the Earth observing a planet and the brand name ‘Space Doubt’ positioned alongside it. The Panel noted that these elements were repeated on the back label alongside the romance copy which included the line ‘Space Doubt is your resident guy in the sky, always pondering on the best ways to get into far out mischief’. The Panel noted that the packaging was absent of any reference to surfing, surfing culture or surfing language to give context to the intended meaning of ‘Chronic’ as explained by the producer, rendering it open to interpretation. In light of this, the Panel discussed the brand name ‘Space Doubt’ and noted that it phonetically sounded like ‘spaced out’, a phrase commonly used to infer impairment due to the effects of illicit drugs. The Panel considered that ‘chronic’ in the context of being ‘spaced out’ reinforced the perception that the word ‘chronic’ was a reference to cannabis use in this particular context. The Panel then discussed the positioning of the skeleton which was sitting cross-legged in a relaxed pose staring into space. The Panel considered the pose and positioning of the character which suggested it was experiencing a surreal out-of-body experience akin to the effect of drugs and this was compounded by the inclusion of ‘Space Doubt’, ‘Chronic’ and references to a ‘guy in the sky’, all of which could refer to getting high.
Taking all of the above into account, the Panel stated that while each element could have been acceptable in isolation, the cumulative effect of all of them meant that the overall impression conveyed by the drink’s packaging did suggest an association with illicit drugs. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(c).
3.2(b)
Given its decision under Code rule 3.2(c), the Panel raised Code rule 3.2(b) for consideration to determine whether the packaging created an association with illegal behaviour. The Panel noted that the company was based in California and that the sale of recreational-use cannabis was legal in that state. However, the Panel considered that within the UK, cannabis was controlled as a class B drug and therefore it was illegal to possess it. The Panel considered that because the packaging created an association with illicit drugs, and alluded to the effect of cannabis use, the product packaging also indirectly created an association with illegal behaviour. On that basis, the Panel found that the packaging was also in breach of Code rule 3.2(b).
Action by Company:
Withdrawn from UK market.
Producer:
Sánchez Romate
UK Importer:
E I Wines LTD
Complainant:
Zenith Global Commercial Ltd (as part of the independent proactive audit of the Naming and Packaging of Alcoholic Drinks Code, Sixth Edition Amended
Complaint:
“The image on the label features a young woman who looks like she could be under the age of 25”.
Decision:
Under Code Paragraph 3.2(i)
A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way incorporate images of people who are, or look as if they are, under 25 years of age, where there is any suggestion that they are drinking alcohol, or they are featured in a significant role. Images may be shown where people appear only in an incidental context.
NOT UPHELD
The company’s submission
The producer and UK importer submitted a joint response to the complaint.
The company explained that the drink was a premium fortified wine rooted in the rich heritage of sherry-making. The product was crafted for a discerning adult audience and appealed to consumers who valued traditional craftsmanship and complex flavours. The company explained that its marketing strategy was designed to engage responsible adult consumers and did not target or feature individuals under the age of 25.
The company asserted that Oloroso Encontrado complied with Code rule 3.2(i). The company highlighted that the packaging and promotional materials did not feature individuals under 25 or suggest underage consumption, focusing instead on heritage, quality and sophistication. The label, inspired by vintage designs from the early 20th century, emphasised the wine’s historical and artisanal character. The company positioned the product for consumers over 25 with a preference for premium wines and traditional Spanish winemaking and argued that the product did not incorporate imagery or themes appealing to younger demographics. The company stated that Oloroso Encontrado adhered to the Portman Group’s Code of Practice but expressed openness to constructive dialogue and willingness to provide further clarification if required.
The Panel’s assessment
The Panel considered whether the packaging incorporated an image of a person who was, or looked as if they were, under 25 years of age featured in a significant role as raised by the complainant. The Panel assessed the front label, which depicted a woman swinging from a ship’s mast wearing historical attire. The Panel noted that the spirit of Code rule 3.2(i) was intended to protect under-18s from being exposed to images in alcohol marketing of people with whom they might identify or aspire to be like and that this had been applied by the Panel in previous cases considered under the Code. With that in mind, the Panel considered the imagery in further detail and noted that it was difficult to determine the precise age of the character and that any assessment of age should take into account the overall appearance of the person. The Panel noted that the character had a full-figured body which suggested that she was an adult as opposed to a child. In addition to this, the Panel discussed that the woman was wearing lipstick and high heels which further suggested that she was an adult. The Panel considered that the imagery was stylised, with a sepia tone that meant the illustration appeared retro and invoked a nostalgic feeling which contributed to the impression that the woman was older in age. The Panel then considered the attire of the character alongside the nautical setting and noted that it was not typical of contemporary fashion or a hobby that would particularly resonate with children and therefore was not likely to inspire aspiration in those under the age of 18.
After careful consideration of the above points, the Panel concluded that the nostalgic, retro stylisation of the image and the woman’s presentation meant that the character did not appear to be under 25 years of age. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under 3.2(i).
Action by Company:
None required.
Producer:
Keeling Andrew & Co
Complainant:
Zenith Global Commercial Ltd (as part of the independent proactive audit of the Naming and Packaging of Alcoholic Drinks Code, Sixth Edition Amended)
Complaint:
“Illustration image on the front shows a man’s body with a dog’s head holding two glasses and the character looks like it is kneeling, having trouble standing and holding the two drinks without spilling them. This, coupled with the product name “Chin Chin”, meaning good wishes before drinking or finishing an alcoholic drink quickly is viewed to be encouraging immoderate consumption”.
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 3.2(f)
A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way encourage illegal, irresponsible or immoderate consumption, such as drink-driving, binge-drinking or drunkenness
NOT UPHELD
The company’s submission
The company stated that it did not believe that Chin Chin Vinho Verde wine breached Code rule 3.2(f) and did not encourage immoderate alcohol consumption. The company emphasised its commitment to promoting wine appreciation and responsible drinking, targeting adult professionals and creatives rather than individuals seeking excessive consumption. The company highlighted the expertise of its founders, Dan Keeling and Mark Andrew, as respected figures in the wine industry and whose storytelling and authentic wine culture had been reflected through their restaurants, magazine ‘Noble Rot’ and books. This underscored the company mission to promote authentic wine culture through storytelling, using a distinctive, exuberant, and irreverent style that challenged a traditional conservative approach to wine appreciation.
The company explained that the image on the Chin Chin label reflected its playful and exuberant brand identity, which aligned with the artwork featured in Noble Rot magazine over the years. The label featured a character in a balanced, athletic kneeling pose inspired by ancient Greek sculptures which was presenting glasses of wine in celebration. The character’s bright-eyed expression and broad smile were intended to convey celebration rather than drunkenness, aiming to make wine culture more inclusive and less traditional. The company described the design as fun and irreverent, with no intention of promoting immoderate alcohol consumption.
The company refuted the claim that the expression “Chin Chin” promoted rapid alcohol consumption, arguing that it traditionally conveyed “good wishes” or “good health” and was associated with the civilised enjoyment of wine. The company emphasised that wine, unlike drinks typically linked to “down-in-one” culture, was not consumed quickly and the suggestion that the phrase encouraged such behaviour was entirely misconceived.
The company emphasised that Chin Chin Vinho Verde had a relatively low alcoholic strength of 11.5% and was unlikely to appeal to consumers seeking to drink excessively. The company highlighted its retail price of approximately £12.50, which while moderate for wines of similar quality, made it an expensive option for purchasing alcohol solely for intoxication. Instead, the company stated that consumers were more likely to have bought it for its refreshing style, ethical production and trusted source.
The Panel’s assessment
The Panel discussed whether the brand name encouraged immoderate consumption as raised by the complainant. The Panel considered the name ‘Chin Chin’ and noted that it was typically understood as an expression to communicate good wishes, usually prior to drinking. The Panel discussed that while the phrase was not completely antiquated, it was not an expression that was commonly used and tended to be associated with older generations. The Panel noted that the phrase ‘chin chin’ was typically used in social situations, for instance at dinner parties to signal a toast to celebrate good company, as opposed to an instruction that a person should drink rapidly or as encouragement to drink immoderately. On that basis, the Panel did not consider that the name alone encouraged immoderate consumption.
The Panel then considered the rest of the packaging to determine if there were any other elements that might encourage a person to drink immoderately. The Panel noted that the front label included a stylised image of a humanoid creature with a canine head, balancing in a kneeled position with a drink in each hand with ‘Chin Chin Vinho Verde’ above it presented in a wavy font. The Panel assessed the dog in more detail and discussed the company’s response that the pose was a reference to ancient Greek statues. The Panel noted that the imagery did invoke an antiquity style, with the dog-headed creature bearing a resemblance to the ancient Egyptian god Anubis which was reinforced by the two-dimensional perspective. The Panel considered that the dog did not appear to be intoxicated because it was able to hold a position with one drink in front and one behind which would require precise balance. Furthermore, the drinks were not spilling or sloshing over the rims of the glasses which suggested that the dog was in control and not inebriated.
The Panel discussed the depiction of one character holding two drinks and whether this could encourage immoderate consumption. The Panel discussed accompanying guidance for Code rule 3.2(f) which advised that a person should not be encouraged to drink more than four units of alcohol in one sitting. The Panel also considered this in the wider context of the Chief Medical Officer’s Low Risk Drinking Guidelines which recommend that men and women should not regularly consume more than 14 units of alcohol a week. The Panel noted that neither of these thresholds prevented the consumption of multiple drinks in one sitting as long as an alcohol producer did not encourage a consumer to exceed four units in one sitting. In this case, whilst the Panel acknowledged that it was difficult to specifically determine the exact number of units within a glass, on balance, taking into account the strength of the wine and a standard glass size, it was unlikely that the drinks would exceed four units. In addition to this, the Panel noted that the dog was not shown consuming the drinks but was instead using them as a display of balancing skill with one drink positioned behind the dog and away from his mouth. On this basis, the Panel considered that the imagery did not directly suggest that a person should consume two drinks nor did it encourage immoderate consumption.
The Panel considered the wavy font style used for the brand name ‘Chin Chin’ and noted that it could be suggestive of blurred vision that one might have as a result of drunkenness. However, in the absence of any other elements which could be seen to encourage immoderate consumption, the Panel did not think the font alone was sufficient to link to the effects of intoxication.
Taking the above points into account, the Panel concluded that on balance, while the imagery, name and font style were distinctive and unique, the overall impression conveyed did not encourage immoderate consumption. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under Code rule 3.2(f).
Action by Company:
None required.
Producer:
Zonte’s Footstep
Complainant:
Zenith Global Commercial Ltd (as part of the independent proactive audit of the Naming and Packaging of Alcoholic Drinks Code, Sixth Edition Amended)
Complaint:
“Image of a young woman in a significant position on the bottle. The wine is called Violet Beauregarde, after the fictional character who was one of five children who enters Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory, similar to the bottle design she blew bubblegum, and became a blueberry, which is referenced in the label description in the context of the dominant flavours in the wine”.
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 3.2(h)
A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way have a particular appeal to under-18s. A producer must not allow the placement of brand names, logos or trademarks on merchandise which has a particular appeal to under-18s or is intended for use primarily by under-18s
NOT UPHELD
Under Code paragraph 3.2(i)
A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way incorporate images of people who are, or look as if they are, under 25 years of age, where there is any suggestion that they are drinking alcohol, or they are featured in a significant role. Images may be shown where people appear only in an incidental context.
NOT UPHELD
The company’s submission
The company welcomed the opportunity to respond to the concerns raised in the complaint. The company explained that the image on the bottle was an artistic representation created by an artist, Bianca Smith, based on the story behind the wine’s name. The company clarified that the artwork featured an adult model over the age of 25 to comply with Australian advertising codes. Although inspired by the fictional character Violet Beauregarde from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, the design deliberately avoided depicting the actual character, with the only connection being the bubble of gum. The company explained that the character was widely recognised as fictional and not a real person. The design aimed to evoke the whimsical nature of the story while highlighting the wine’s unique blueberry characteristics, ensuring it was marketed as a product for adults aged 18 and over.
The company explained that the reference to Roald Dahl’s work was intended to add a playful and memorable element to the branding, aimed at adults rather than under-18s. The wine was marketed to an adult audience, with packaging and promotional materials designed to highlight the sophisticated flavour profile rather than appeal to children. The company highlighted that Violet Beauregard Malbec 2020 had been well-received by adult consumers, particularly for its distinctive blueberry notes and creative branding. The name and design were carefully chosen to reflect the wine’s unique characteristics and to stand out in a competitive market.
The company stated that similar precedent cases including Little Pomona Table Cider and Zymurgorium Forced Darkside Rhubarb Gin Liqueur, demonstrated that the context and intent behind branding were considered by the Panel. The company explained that the wine similarly targeted an adult audience and did not feature imagery or references that would primarily appeal to under-18s.
The company respectfully submitted that Violet Beauregard Malbec 2020 did not breach Code rules 3.2(i) or 3.2(h). The company stated that the branding and marketing were intended for an adult audience, with references to fictional characters enhancing the product’s identity without appealing to under-18s. The company expressed appreciation for the Panel’s consideration and affirmed its commitment to responsible marketing standards.
The Panel’s assessment
3.2(i)
The Panel considered whether the packaging incorporated an image of a person who was, or looked as if they were, under 25 years of age featured in a significant role as raised by the complainant. The Panel considered the imagery on the front of the bottle, noting that it was a sketched minimalist drawing of a woman with a large pink bubble covering the majority of her face. The Panel discussed the drink’s name, Violet Beauregard, who was one of the children featured in Roald Dahl’s novel Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Violet was depicted in the book and in the subsequent 1971 and 2005 films as a child around age 11. The Panel noted the company’s response that the depiction of Violet Beauregard in this case was based on artwork of an adult over the age of 25.
The Panel then considered the overall presentation of the illustration and noted that the use of detail and shadowing techniques, particularly around the eyes and eyebrows, depicted the woman in a mature adult manner. The Panel discussed the facial expression and body position of the woman which gave a suggestive quality to the illustration, further reflecting that the character was an adult. The Panel considered that the character was clearly presented as a depiction of Violet Beauregard, and this was compounded by the inclusion of her name and the bubble gum imagery, an item synonymous with the fictional character. However, the Panel noted that the presentation of the character as an adult was clearly a reimagined version of the character and was unlikely to be recognised by children.
Taking the above points into consideration, the Panel considered that the sophisticated artwork, combined with the adult features of the woman, meant she did not appear to be under-25. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under Code rule 3.2(i).
3.2(h)
At the preliminary investigation stage of the complaint, the Panel Chair raised Code rule 3.2(h) for consideration to determine whether the name or packaging could have a particular appeal to under-18s. The Panel first discussed the drink’s name, Violet Beauregard, and noted that she was a prominent character in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, a story by Roald Dahl which was first published in 1964. The Panel noted that Roald Dahl was a renowned children’s author who published work through most of the latter half of the 20th century. The Panel considered that many adults would be familiar with his books from their own childhoods and therefore, he would have a level of nostalgic appeal to adults. The Panel also noted that children today would equally recognise his novels, particularly as some were still very popular with primary school aged children.
The Panel then discussed the drink’s name and noted that Violet Beauregard featured fairly prominently in the original story as one of the five children that had won a golden ticket and toured Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory, although the Panel acknowledged that she was not one of the main protagonists. The Panel expressed concern that any inclusion or reference to a character that featured in a story targeted predominantly at children would be at risk of having a particular appeal to under-18s but that, as always, the overall impression conveyed by the packaging would ultimately determine compliance with the Code.
With that in mind, the Panel considered that the front label was fairly simple in design, with a detailed charcoal-style illustration as the predominant focal point, which was set against a white background. In the context of its decision under Code rule 3.2(i), the Panel considered that the character was over the age of 25 and therefore the adult nature of the woman created a degree of separation from the book character. The Panel considered that children would be unlikely to recognise the illustration as Violet Beauregard from the story on that basis, as they would expect her to be depicted as a child rather than a mature woman and therefore the imagery was unlikely to resonate with young children. The Panel noted that the label did not include elements such as cartoon imagery, bright contrasting colours or thick bold keylines, which were all elements that could contribute to a product having a particular appeal to under-18s. In this case, the Panel considered the sketched nature of the imagery, with its limited use of colour and detailed complex design achieved through shading and shadow effects and concluded that the illustration was sophisticated in design and would appeal more to an adult audience.
The Panel then considered the back label and noted that while the majority of the copy referred to the fruit flavours of the wine, there were references to Veruca Salt and Augustus Gloop, two other characters from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. The back label also included a quote attributed to Roald Dahl which read as ‘It’s amazing! Blueberry pie and ice cream! I can feel it running down my throat’. The Panel discussed that while Roald Dahl stories remained popular with under-18s, the movie adaptations of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory were both 50 and 20 years old respectively. The Panel noted that in recent years, Wonka, a movie which focused on the enigmatic Willy Wonka’s backstory, was popular with under-18s; however, the film did not feature any of the children mentioned in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Furthermore, the Panel considered the positioning of the references on the back label and noted that they were not overt and therefore Violet Beauregard, Veruca Salt and Augustus Gloop might be less recognisable to under-18s on that basis.
After much debate, the Panel considered that the inclusion of any character that featured in a children’s story was at risk of having a particular appeal to under-18s. However, in this specific instance, because the character was presented as a reimagined adult version of Violet Beauregard, the Panel considered it would be unlikely that the character would be recognised by under-18s as the girl in the children’s story. Taking into account that the other references to Roald Dahl and the child characters were on the back of the label, and that there were no other cues on the packaging which would contribute to it having a particular appeal to under-18s, the Panel considered that the product was sufficiently far enough removed from the aspects of the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory story that it did not have particular appeal to under 18s. Therefore, the Panel concluded that while the name and packaging was close to the line of acceptability, the overall impression conveyed by the packaging in its entirety did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).
Action by Company:
None required.