Producer:
Lervig
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 can has no mention of alcohol content on the front and, with the illustrations, the alcoholic nature of the drink is not communicated with absolute clarity.
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 explained it was a craft beer producer based in Stavanger, Norway and therefore operated under some of the most restrictive alcohol laws globally. Since establishing its visual branding in 2016, it had not received any complaints regarding its artwork, product names, or any related matters. The company stated that its beers, including “Passion Tang” were considered long-standing classics, sold domestically and exported to approximately 30 countries, all without any reported issues.
The company explained that the can designs were round and lacked a defined front, with clear information about the product such as “SOUR ALE” and the alcohol content of “7% VOL.” easily visible on one part of the can. The company therefore stated that the alcoholic nature of the drink had been communicated with absolute clarity. The company highlighted that the brand had been in the market for over seven years, maintaining the same design throughout, and had received no complaints or instances of consumers mistakenly purchasing it.
The Panel’s assessment
The Panel discussed whether the drink’s packaging communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity as raised by the complainant. The Panel considered the front label of the can and noted that it was absent of any typical positive alcohol cues such as the drink’s legal name, alcoholic descriptors or the drink’s alcoholic strength by volume (ABV). Instead, the Panel noted that the predominant imagery for three-quarters of the wraparound artwork was cartoon-like passionfruit slices alongside stylised illustrations of legs and toes. The Panel discussed that passionfruit was not a typical flavour associated with alcoholic drinks and noted that, overall, the design was fairly busy with an overt emphasis on passionfruit. The Panel considered that these design features could detract from the drink’s alcoholic nature. However, the Panel noted that it was not a requirement of the Code or the law to include mandatory information on the front of packaging and that guidance accompanying the Code rule advised that the entirety of the label must be considered when determining compliance with the Code.
The Panel then considered the back label and noted that there were some positive alcohol cues in small text such as the drink’s ABV, the descriptor ‘Sour Ale’, the pregnancy warning logo and the drink’s unit content information. The Panel noted that these elements were included alongside other information such as the drink’s ingredients and recycling details which were presented in a relatively small font size and did not particularly stand out on the packaging. The Panel considered the drink’s name, ‘Passion Tang’, which was included on the top of the back label. The Panel discussed the name and noted that ‘tang’ was commonly used to describe non-alcoholic products such as sweets or soft drinks in the UK. The Panel considered that ‘Passion Tang’ as a name alone would not communicate to consumers that the drink was alcoholic as it was likely that the term on a 330ml can would be more associated with fruit flavoured non-alcoholic drinks.
With that in mind, the Panel carefully considered whether the packaging had the capacity to cause consumer confusion. The Panel acknowledged that there were some positive alcoholic cues on the back of the packaging but noted from previous precedent cases that compliance with UK legal regulations did not necessarily equate to compliance with Code rule 3.1, particularly where packaging had incorporated predominant fruit imagery or placed emphasis on a flavour not typically associated with an alcoholic drink. In those cases, the Panel had concluded a product may need to work harder to ensure its alcoholic nature was communicated with absolute clarity. The Panel noted the producer’s response that the product was only available in speciality alcohol shops but reminded producers that all products that were purchased could be taken into the home environment and that this remained outside of the producer’s control. In addition to this, the Panel noted that the remit of the Code and its application applied solely to the product packaging as opposed to an assessment of how the product was retailed.
With the above points in mind, the Panel concluded that the name ‘Passion Tang’, alongside the predominant passionfruit design and fruit flavour was the overwhelming impression conveyed by the product. The Panel considered that whilst there were some positive alcohol cues on the back of the packaging these were all included in relatively small size font and that the overwhelming fruit messaging detracted from the product’s alcoholic nature and could cause confusion as to whether the drink was alcoholic or not. Therefore, on balance, the Panel found that the packaging did not communicate its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity and accordingly upheld the
complaint under Code rule 3.1.
Action by Company:
No longer sold in the UK.