The alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel has upheld a complaint against Sainsbury’s Tiramisu Rum Liqueur. The complaint was made by Zenith Global Commercial Ltd, as part of the Portman Group’s independent proactive audit of the UK market[1]. Read the full decision here.
The complaint stated that the product had no clear alcohol labelling on the primary packaging and raised concerns that if the swing tag with the product’s alcohol information was removed, it further reduced transparency regarding the product’s alcoholic nature.
The Panel considered that if the swing tag was removed the overall impression conveyed was not one of any specific drink and therefore the drink’s packaging did have the capacity to mislead as to its alcoholic nature. The Panel discussed that it was not sufficient to include the only clearly presented, positive alcohol cues on a removable swing tag that was likely to be removed after purchase or could be accidentally removed even prior to purchase. The Panel noted that the mandatory information that had been embossed in gold lettering, on a gold-cork lid was not particularly distinguishable or visible. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the product did not communicate its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity and accordingly upheld the complaint under Code rule 3.1.
The producer has taken proactive steps to mitigate the risk of consumer confusion regarding the product’s alcoholic nature when selling through the remaining stock and will no longer be producing the drink in its current form.
Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Rachel Childs, said: “Ensuring all important information is clear, visible and not easily removed is vital to make sure the consumer is informed as to the alcoholic nature of a product. If there is any room for confusion or ambiguity then the Panel have little choice but to uphold a complaint, such as they did in this case.”
[1] Part of the independent proactive audit of the Naming and Packaging of Alcoholic Drinks Code, Sixth Edition Amended
Producer:
Sainsbury’s Supermarkets 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 product has no clear alcohol labelling and visually resembles an RTD tea, which could mislead consumers about its alcoholic nature. Additionally, if the label is removed after opening, it further reduces transparency regarding the alcohol content, raising additional concerns”.
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 stated that it did not believe that the drink’s packaging was in breach of the Portman Group’s Code of Practice. The company explained that the product communicated its alcoholic nature through the product name, which prominently stated “Tiramisu Rum Liqueur”; a universally recognised indicator of alcohol. The alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) was clearly stated as “20% vol 50cl” on the swing tag and the cork was marked as alcoholic. In addition to this, the descriptive text on the rear tag described the product as “a delicious blend of Caribbean rum, dark chocolate and coffee… creating a decadent liqueur”. The company addressed the suggestion that the product resembled a Ready-To-Drink (RTD) tea and stated that this was unsubstantiated. The company highlighted that the packaging format featured a glass, faceted bottle with a cork-style stopper and gold foiling which was not typical of RTD teas. The company stated this premium styling reflected a high-quality liqueur rather than a casual soft drink. Furthermore, the product was exclusively merchandised within the alcohol section, both in-store and online, reinforcing its alcoholic nature.
The company addressed concerns about the removable swing tag and explained whilst the swing tag was removable, the cork was permanently labelled with the product name “Tiramisu”, the alcoholic descriptor “Rum Liqueur” and “20% ABV” which ensured that the alcoholic nature remained clear. The company stated that further required information was presented on the swing tag at the point of sale and ensured that the product complied with labelling regulations.
As part of its response, the company shared a view from Oxfordshire County Council, the Primary Authority for Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd. Oxfordshire Trading Standards (OTS) stated that its relationship with Sainsbury’s was to provide advice regarding the interpretation of Trading Standards legislation, in particular in relation to this matter, areas that covered Food Standards and Fair Trading, including misleading products. OTS confirmed that it had reviewed the complaint and that in its view the product complied with the Food Information to Consumers Regulations (1169/2011) which permitted mandatory food information to appear on a swing tag. OTS highlighted that the product was correctly labelled with the name of the food and its ABV and that its presentation was not misleading in any way. Addressing the other element of the complaint, OTS explained that the bottle design, a high-quality glass with a cork lid, clearly indicated an alcoholic product, not an RTD tea. The view provided by OTS concluded that the product communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity and did not breach the Portman Group’s Code.
The company concluded that the Tiramisu Rum Liqueur complied with the Portman Group’s Code by clearly communicating its alcoholic nature and did not resemble a non-alcoholic drink. The company requested the complaint be reconsidered and expressed confidence in its compliance while remaining open to constructive dialogue.
The Panel’s assessment
The Panel considered whether the packaging communicated the drink’s alcoholic nature with absolute clarity as raised by the complainant. The Panel discussed the Portman Group’s accompanying guidance to Code rule 3.1 which stated that when determining whether the alcoholic nature of a drink had been communicated with absolute clarity regard would be given to a drink’s compliance with Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers and the UK Food Information Regulations 2014. However, the Panel also noted that guidance stipulated that compliance with the law would not be the only determining factor in judging compliance with the Code under rule 3.1. The Panel noted that packaging could still be found in breach of the Code under the absolute clarity requirement if, in the Panel’s view, it had the potential to mislead about its alcoholic nature or was likely to cause consumer confusion.
The Panel considered the packaging and noted that the bottle employed a novel design, with textured clear glass and a geometric pattern vertically displayed on one side. The Panel noted that aside from the vertical geometric design, there was nothing else printed on the bottle and it was void of any alcohol-related information on the glass. Instead, the Panel noted that the product’s alcohol health-related information only appeared on a swing tag which included signposting to the Drinkaware website, unit content information, pregnancy warning, the Chief Medical Officers’ Low-Risk Drinking Guidelines and a responsible drinking message. The Panel assessed the swing tag in more detail and noted that it was attached to the bottle with string and displayed a “to” and “from” inside which gave the impression it was a gift tag. The Panel discussed that if the drink was given as a gift, it was likely that the tag would be removed and discarded so that a consumer could peel off the protective plastic wrapper to open the product and that this was also compounded by the cultural assumption that most people would remove a gift tag before using a gift. Furthermore, the elasticated string meant that the swing tag could be easily pulled over the drink’s neck and as it was not securely fastened could easily be removed, intentionally or accidentally, in a home or retail environment. The Panel discussed two comparable precedent cases, Spiced Sugar Plum Light Up Snow Globe Gin Liqueur and Clementine Light Up Snow Globe Gin Liqueur, and noted that in its previous decisions it had concluded that swing tag labels which were easily removable could cause confusion as to the alcoholic nature of the drink if that information was not clearly repeated on the primary packaging.
With that in mind, the Panel then assessed the overall impression conveyed by the packaging. The Panel noted that the drink was sealed with a large cork stopper which had the words “Rum Liqueur” and “20% vol” printed on it. The Panel discussed that the text was embossed onto the golden lid in a light gold text colour and noted that the lack of contrast in the colours meant that it was difficult to read, was not particularly prominent and was not contrasting enough to catch someone’s attention. The Panel further noted that the lid of a drink was not in a field of vison a consumer would normally expect to find alcoholic cues. The Panel discussed that consumers would turn a product around to look at a product in the round when assessing its alcoholic nature but considered that the top and bottom of a product were not typically places where a consumer would expect to find important information regarding a product’s alcoholic nature and that this became more pertinent when a removable swing tag contained the only clear, positive alcohol cues.
The Panel discussed the complainant’s view that the product appeared to be an RTD tea but considered that there was no additional language on the product which supported this assertion or any flavouring that referenced tea. The Panel noted that if the swing tag were removed the overall impression conveyed was not one of any specific drink.
The Panel discussed the producer’s response and noted the producer’s point that the product was exclusively merchandised within the alcohol section, both in-store and online, which in the producer’s view enforced the product’s alcoholic nature. The Panel noted that the remit of the Code applied solely to product packaging, irrespective of how a product was retailed and considered that ultimately the product would end up in the home-environment as most products in the off-trade would. The Panel also discussed the view provided from Oxfordshire Trading Standards which formed part of the producer’s response. The Panel sought to remind producers that compliance with the law was not always indicative of compliance with Code rule 3.1 and the wording requirement of ‘absolute clarity’. The Panel encouraged producers to carefully consider how a product’s alcoholic nature was communicated and that the minimum requirements in law were not always sufficient under the Code when there was the possibility that a consumer could be misled as to a product’s alcoholic nature if important information was provided on a removable gift tag and further mandatory information was not clearly visible in an unconventional place. The Panel further noted that this position was consistent with precedent that had been established in previous cases regarding Spiced Sugar Plum Light Up Snow Globe Gin Liqueur and Clementine Light Up Snow Globe Gin Liqueur.
Taking this into account, the Panel concluded that in its view, the drink’s packaging did have the capacity to mislead as to the product’s alcoholic nature. The Panel considered that it was not sufficient to include the only clearly presented, positive alcohol cues on a removable swing tag that was likely to be removed after purchase or could be accidentally removed even prior to purchase. As established in previous precedent, the Panel noted that if a product incorporated a removable swing tag it should repeat important alcohol-related information on primary packaging in a clear and legible manner. However, in this case, the Panel noted that this mandatory information had been embossed in gold lettering, on a gold-cork lid which it considered was an unconventional place where consumers would not typically seek such important information and that this was not particularly distinguishable or visible in its presentation. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the product did not communicate its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity and accordingly upheld the complaint under Code rule 3.1.
Action by Company:
The product has been discontinued
The alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel has upheld complaints against two products identified by Zenith Global Commercial Ltd, as part of the Portman Group’s independent proactive audit of the UK market[1].
The complaints made were against Northern Monk’s Amy Hastings DDH Hazy IPA and Origin Wine Stellenbosch’s Fuzzy Duck Chardonnay.
Amy Hastings DDH Hazy IPA
The Panel found that Amy Hastings DDH Hazy IPA was in breach of Code Rule 3.2(h) whereby 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.
The Panel considered the product’s design and considered representations from the producer, which stated that its intention was to create a design that celebrated femininity in the craft beer industry. Whilst the Panel acknowledged the intention to create a feminine beer label in a sector that often predominately used masculine artwork it considered in this case that the combination of the image of tattooed dogs, doodles, personified sun and moon, the pale pastel pink, alongside the handwritten signed name meant that the overall impression conveyed was very similar to a diary or notebook of a teenager. The Panel concluded that on that basis, while unintended, the cumulative impact of the design would have a particular appeal to under-18s.
The company has informed the Panel that the product is no longer in circulation and will make future changes in line with the Panel’s decision. The full decision can be read here.
Fuzzy Duck Chardonnay
The Panel found Fuzzy Duck Chardonnay to be in breach of two Code Rules. The first, 3.2(f) whereby 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. The second, 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.
Under 3.2 (f) the Panel considered, that in the context of an alcoholic drink, ‘Fuzzy Duck’ the drinking game was sufficiently well known and that most consumers would recognise the link between the drink’s name and the game. The Panel expressed concern that any reference to a drinking game in alcohol marketing was unacceptable because of the strong association with intoxication and drunkenness. On that basis, the Panel concluded that the packaging encouraged irresponsible consumption, and the complaint was upheld.
Under 3.2(h) the Panel took all elements of the product’s label and packaging into account and concluded that the inclusion of a large-eyed, smiling, rubber duck, which would be recognised by younger children as a bathtime toy meant that the packaging would have a particular appeal to under-18s. The Panel sought to remind producers that the inclusion of any children’s toy on packaging would be unacceptable under the Code regardless of the overall impression conveyed by the packaging. Accordingly, the Panel also found the product in breach of Code rule 3.2(h).
Upon receiving notification of the complaint, the UK importer, Tesco Stores Ltd, has informed the Portman Group that the product will no longer be imported into the UK. The full decision can be read here.
Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Rachel Childs, said: “Whilst in these cases, it seems that these producers did not intend to appeal to under-18s, they underline why it is vital that producers consult the Code of Practice and whenever possible use the Portman Group’s free Advisory Service when designing their labels and packaging to ensure they do not cross the line of acceptability. Any reference to a recognised drinking game is likely to be unacceptable under the code.”
[1] Part of the independent proactive audit of the Naming and Packaging of Alcoholic Drinks Code, Sixth Edition Amended
Producer:
Origin Wine Stellenbosch
UK importer:
Tesco Stores 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:
“Combining the text on the back with the known drinking game that shares the same name. The phrase on the back of the bottle, “Fuzzy Duck doesn’t just quack; it waddles too,” is very similar to the well-known drinking game “Fuzzy Duck,” where players alternate saying “Fuzzy Duck” and “Ducky Fuzz,” often leading to confusion and excessive drinking. Because of this, the wording on the label could unintentionally link the product to a drinking game, 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.
UPHELD
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.
UPHELD
The company’s submission
The producer’s response
The company explained that it was willing to work cooperatively and would implement any changes required by the Panel. The company explained that the decision behind the brand and design was to create a unique style of South African wines to showcase the country’s diversity, flexibility and competitiveness against other international wine producers. The company’s aim was to challenge the stigma that only certain countries could succeed in producing specific wine styles. To achieve this, the Fuzzy Duck label was designed to stand out on shelves, using a disruptive style and incorporated an animal, which was a popular trend in wine branding.
The company stated that as part of the design and its participation in UK initiatives like Drinkaware, which promoted conscious alcohol consumption and healthy living, the alcohol levels in Fuzzy Duck products had been made lower compared to similar wine products from other countries.
The importer’s response
The importer stated that it understood the rationale behind the complaint and agreed it did not seem like a clear-cut breach of the Code. The importer welcomed the Panel’s view on the product and volunteered several points for the Panel’s consideration.
The importer explained that it considered the branding and labelling a good fit for the wine style and had not anticipated a breach of the Portman Group’s Code of Practice. The importer addressed the concern regarding the phrase on the back of the bottle, “Fuzzy Duck doesn’t just quack; it waddles too”. The importer stated that references to a duck quacking and waddling were common and did not inherently suggest inebriation or promote excessive drinking. The importer also acknowledged the potential concern that the word “doesn’t” in the phrase might reinforce an association with the drinking game involving the phrase “does he?” However, the importer pointed out that “doesn’t” and “does he” differed phonetically, in writing, and in meaning. Additionally, the importer highlighted that the combination of “Fuzzy Duck” and “doesn’t” combined alliteration and internal rhyme and was chosen for that reason without any connection to the drinking game.
The importer stated that the product had a relatively low alcohol by volume (ABV) of 10.5% which it believed did not encourage immoderate consumption. The importer highlighted that the description “Buttery Chardonnay” on the front of the product was more prominent than the product’s name and was likely to have played a greater role in influencing a customer’s decision to purchase it. The importer questioned whether the rubber duck image on the product packaging, typically associated with young children, would appeal to older under-18s who were more at risk of underage drinking and sought the Panel’s view on this point.
The importer stated that it would take the Panel’s view into account regarding all future products it would stock.
The Panel’s assessment
3.2(f)
The Panel considered whether the drink’s packaging encouraged irresponsible or immoderate consumption as raised by the complainant. The Panel discussed the drink’s name, ‘Fuzzy Duck’, and noted that the phrase was used in multiple ways, including as a name for restaurants, pubs and a toiletries brand. However, specifically in the context of an alcohol product, the Panel noted that ‘Fuzzy Duck’ referred to a tongue twister drinking game whereby participants were required to correctly say set phrases depending on the order of play. If a participant made a mistake and spoke the incorrect tongue twister, then they would be required to pay a forfeit in the form of consuming a drink. The Panel discussed accompanying guidance to Code rule 3.2(f) which stated that encouraging participation in drinking games was unacceptable under the Code as it removed an individual’s capacity to choose and moderate their own alcohol consumption which then became based on the rules of a game instead. The Panel considered that such games directly encouraged intoxication because a person would abdicate personal responsibility when deciding when and how much alcohol to consume and instead allowed the rules of the game to determine their drinking behaviour. The Panel noted the company’s response that the name was intended to stand out on the shelf as part of a recent trend to name drinks after birds. The Panel acknowledged that there was nothing else on the label that related to the drinking game however, equally, there was also no information which explained the intended meaning of ‘Fuzzy Duck’. The Panel discussed that while all consumers may not be familiar with the drinking game, it was reasonably well-known and when considered in the context of an alcoholic drink, the name and the game were inextricably linked. The Panel expressed concern that any reference to a drinking game in alcohol marketing was unacceptable because of the strong association with intoxication and drunkenness.
The Panel then considered the rest of the label and noted that the back label included the sentence “Fuzzy Duck doesn’t just quack; it waddles too”. The Panel acknowledged the company’s response that ‘waddle’ referred to the common way that ducks walked but considered that ‘waddle’ could also refer to a person being unsteady on their feet due to drunkenness. In the context of a drinking game that encouraged drunkenness, the Panel stated that in this instance ‘waddle’ emphasised the link between the packaging and immoderate consumption.
After much discussion regarding the above points, the Panel considered, that in the context of an alcoholic drink, ‘Fuzzy Duck’ the drinking game was sufficiently well-known and that most consumers would recognise the link between the drink’s name and the game. The Panel acknowledged that the link was not intentional but warned producers that any inclusion or reference to drinking games in alcohol marketing would not be acceptable under the Code due to their inherent link with drunkenness and intoxication. On that basis, the Panel concluded that the packaging encouraged irresponsible consumption and the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(f).
3.2(h)
At the Preliminary Investigation stage, the Panel Chair raised Code rule 3.2(h) for discussion by the Panel to determine whether the packaging could have a particular appeal to under-18s. The Panel assessed the packaging and noted that while the front label was fairly minimal in design, it included a large and prominent image of a rubber duck. The Panel discussed rubber ducks and noted that they were primarily bath toys targeted at young children and toddlers. The Panel considered that while rubber ducks could be collector pieces or novelty items sometimes handed to adults in a branded capacity, they remained a popular child’s bathtime toy easily recognised by children. Furthermore, the Panel noted that novelty rubber ducks aimed at adults tended to be painted or decorated in ornate and unusual ways to differentiate them from the standard yellow toy. The Panel considered the image of the duck in more detail and noted that it had large eyes, raised eyebrows and a bill that was upturned, which gave the impression that it was smiling. The Panel noted that the facial expression made it appear welcoming and friendly, and considered that its large eyes would be engaging to younger children who were drawn to such features. In addition to this, the Panel noted that the duck was presented as a recognisable classic yellow toy which further enhanced the appeal the packaging would have to under-18s. Taking the above elements into account, the Panel considered that the inclusion of a large-eyed, smiling, rubber duck, which would be recognised by younger children as a bathtime toy, meant that the packaging would have a particular appeal to under-18s. The Panel sought to remind producers that the inclusion of any children’s toy on packaging would be unacceptable under the Code regardless of the overall impression conveyed by the packaging. Accordingly, the Panel found the product in breach of Code rule 3.2(h).
Action by Company:
The product would no longer be imported to the UK.
Producer:
Northern Monk
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 artwork includes cartoonish and colourful designs, such as animals and playful symbols, which could potentially appeal to individuals under 18. While the intent seems to be artistic expression, this design might raise concerns under this rule due to its visual style”.
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.
UPHELD
The company’s submission
The company expressed appreciation for the Portman Group’s efforts in maintaining responsible industry standards and welcomed the opportunity to address the concern raised by the complainant. The company stated that its mission was to create world-class beer that united communities, celebrated creativity and championed inclusivity, while adhering to the Code of Practice. The company explained that the design of the Amy Hastings DDH Hazy IPA was part of an initiative to amplify underrepresented voices in the craft beer industry. The use of pink tones and expressive illustrations were intended to present a feminine aesthetic in a male-dominated category, rather than appeal to under-18s. The artwork was curated in collaboration with an independent artist whose designs were rooted in adult contemporary culture and the company did not perceive the design as childish or appealing to underage audiences. However, the company acknowledged the concern raised and emphasised the importance of clarity in visual communications. The company noted that the Amy Hastings DDH Hazy IPA was already scheduled to go out of circulation, with new artwork being developed for future releases. The company committed to considering the feedback in future designs to ensure alignment with the Code and industry expectations.
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 discussed the company’s response that label was a collaborative design with artist Amy Hasting aimed at adults. The Panel acknowledged the intention to create a feminine beer label in a sector that often predominately used masculine artwork. The Panel considered that it was clear that a lot of thought had been put into the design and that there was nothing inherently problematic with creating a label that was feminine or that incorporated designs that would amplify the contribution of women in the industry.
The Panel carefully considered the overall impression conveyed by the packaging. The Panel noted that the majority of the can was pink with some contrasting colours such as white, yellow, and green. There were two images of white dogs positioned prominently on the front label surrounded by abstract imagery including lightning bolts, hearts and personified celestial bodies. The Panel discussed the dogs and noted that they were reminiscent of porcelain decorative dogs which usually came in pairs and were popular with an older demographic. The Panel considered that while older consumers might make this connection, younger people would be less likely to recognise the animals in this context given that porcelain dogs were no longer popular. The Panel noted that the dogs did have rosy cheeks which made them appear slightly ‘cute’, however, the dogs were not smiling and did not appear to be particularly friendly, which lessened their inherent appeal to younger children. The Panel noted that both dogs were covered in doodle-like tattoos, which appeared to be hand-drawn using bold black lines which gave the appearance of pen ink. The Panel discussed that the imagery, including bubble-like writing, hearts, leaves, stars and matches were similar to the style of art that teenagers commonly drew on their own skin or notebooks to express individuality. This was reinforced by the positioning of the markings on the dogs, which were presented in a similar haphazard style akin to teenage doodles, rather than carefully considered placement of permanent adult tattoos which tended to be more intentional. The Panel also noted that the wider label included a number of similar doodle-like designs presented in an abstract fashion, including a sun and moon which were personified, alongside hearts, stars and dice. The Panel considered that these elements presented as playful and edgy which, given the similarities with doodles by teenagers, would have a strong appeal to that age group. The Panel noted that ‘Amy Hasting’ was signed at the bottom of the label in a font that was designed to replicate handwriting. The Panel considered that in the context of the above, this meant that the front label had a diary-like quality which, when combined with the doodle elements, would strongly resonate with teenagers who often kept journals of a similar style.
The Panel carefully considered all the above elements together and stated that it was clear that the company and artist had intended to create a design that celebrated femininity in the craft beer industry. However, the Panel considered in this case that the combination of tattooed dogs, doodle imagery, personified sun and moon, use of a pale pastel pink colour, alongside the handwritten signed name meant that the overall impression conveyed was very similar to a diary or notebook of a teenager. The Panel considered that on that basis, while unintended, the cumulative impact of the design would have a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).
Action by Company:
Drink no longer in circulation.
Producer one:
Brew York
Producer two:
Gweilo Beer
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:
“While the 4.5% ABV appears (and only in one place on the can), this is too small and does not stand out sufficiently on the can’s rainbow-covered pattern, nor does the word “beer” appear, just “sour” which does not provide absolute clarity over alcoholic nature. The can’s rainbow-covered pattern is brightly coloured and would immediately appeal to under 18s. While “Best enjoyed with fruity, sour lace sweets from your childhood” does lightly insinuate adult consumption, the packaging’s bright colour and soft drink 330ml can serving size could still present a particular appeal to teens and pre-teens”.
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 3.1 The alcoholic nature of a drink should be communicated on its packaging with absolute clarity.
UPHELD
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.
UPHELD
The company’s submission
As a jointly produced product, Gweilo responded to the complaint on behalf of both Gweilo and Brew York. The company explained that, as an international business, it had developed a product label and advertising compliance policy. This policy involved new packaging being reviewed against a compliance checklist by its in-house legal counsel, head of brand and sales director for the relevant market, ensuring three senior staff members signed off on its compliance. When designing the Rainbow Sherbet packaging, the company conducted a compliance review across multiple markets, including the UK, and believed at the time that the product adhered to all UK regulations and codes. Following a complaint, the company revisited the label’s compliance and concluded that it did not breach the Code.
The company outlined specific points to support its position. The company explained that the front of the can design prominently displayed the alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) as one of four key elements framing the name and logo. This design ensured the ABV was clearly visible on the front, making it evident that the product was alcoholic. The company stated that Gweilo exclusively produced beer, sold in alcohol sections of stores and was solely associated with alcoholic products, making it unlikely for consumers to perceive their product as non-alcoholic. The company stated that the label included symbols indicating “do not drive while drinking” and “do not drink when pregnant”, respectively signalling the product was alcoholic and intended for adult consumption. The label also included the alcoholic unit symbol, indicating that each can contains 2.0 UK units of alcohol, again clearly identifying it as an alcoholic product. The company highlighted that the label included the text “A collaboration brew between Brew York and Gweilo Beer,” using the words “brew” twice and “beer” which made it clear the product was alcoholic. The company also explained that the definition of “Gweilo” on the side of the can included the phrase “Exceptional craft beer born in Hong Kong, brewed with talent” further emphasising the product was alcoholic through the terms “craft beer” and “brewed.” Finally, the product included text highlighting its tasting notes which referenced enjoying the beer with childhood sweets and included the tagline “nostalgically redefining” which further enforced that the product was intended for adult consumption.
The company stated that many beers on sale lacked clear identifiers of being alcoholic, whereas its product had seven distinct elements indicating it was alcoholic and intended for adults. The company concluded that these elements collectively ensured there was no doubt about the product’s alcoholic nature and respectfully suggested that no changes to the packaging were necessary as there was no breach of the Code.
The Panel’s assessment
3.1
The Panel considered whether the packaging communicated the drink’s alcoholic nature with absolute clarity as raised by the complainant. The Panel first discussed a similar precedent case, ‘Yonder Pink Lemonade’, which was found in breach of Code rule 3.1. In that case, the Panel determined that the descriptor ‘sour’ contributed to an overall sense that the product could cause consumer confusion because it was not a widely recognised descriptor to communicate that the drink was a beer. In the context of a drink that was named after a popular soft drink, the Panel stated that packaging which included flavours or imagery that were not typically associated with alcohol would need to work harder to avoid consumer confusion as to the drink’s alcoholic nature.
The Panel then assessed the packaging which had overlapping and underlapping rainbows placed in all different directions covering the majority of the can. The Panel discussed the front label and noted that there were some positive alcoholic cues such as ‘gweilobeer.co.uk’ and the drink’s alcoholic strength by volume, presented as ‘4.5%’. The Panel considered that these cues were presented in a small white font which did not particularly stand out against the busy rainbow background making it difficult to read. In contrast, ‘Rainbow Sherbet Sour’ and ‘gwei.lo’, followed by two Chinese characters, were much more prominent on the label in a larger white font. The Panel noted that ‘Rainbow Sherbet’ was a popular sweet item and therefore was not a flavour that was typically associated with alcohol or a beer. Alongside this, the Panel discussed that ‘sour’ was not a widely recognised reference to alcohol, without a clarifying descriptor, such as ‘beer’. Furthermore, the Panel considered that ‘gwei.lo’ and the Chinese characters were not likely to be understood by the average consumer as a reference to alcohol or beer either. The Panel considered that the combination of these elements on the front of the can therefore did have the capacity to cause consumer confusion as to the alcoholic nature of the drink depending on the impression conveyed by the rest of the label.
With that in mind, the Panel then considered the rest of the packaging alongside the producer’s response and noted that there were some positive alcohol cues, including references to craft beer, a pregnancy warning, drink driving warning logo and unit content information. However, the Panel reiterated that these elements, which were in a smaller white font, did not particularly stand out against the busy rainbow design. Furthermore, much of the text on the back label referred to the sweet fruit flavours and to fruit sour lace sweets which reinforced the perception the drink could be mistaken as a soft drink. This was compounded by the wider label that was covered in rainbows that had a strong resemblance to rainbow sour lace sweets.
Taking the above into account, the Panel concluded that the overwhelming number of negative cues which formed the majority of the product design meant that the label had the capacity to mislead a consumer as to the drink’s alcoholic nature in the Panel’s view. After careful consideration of the overall impression conveyed by the drink’s packaging in its entirety, the Panel considered that the combination of the dominant sweet theme, the drink’s name, the lack of a widely recognised beer descriptor, the busy rainbow background and comparatively small positive alcohol cues meant that the drink’s alcoholic nature was not communicated with absolute clarity. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.1.
3.2(h)
The Panel considered whether the packaging could have a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant. The Panel discussed that the packaging was clearly intended to invoke a sense of nostalgia for adult consumers which was evidenced by the text inclusion of ‘nostalgically redefining’ and ‘Best enjoyed with fruit, sour lace sweets from your childhood!’ on the label. The Panel discussed that appealing to an adult’s sense of nostalgia for their own childhood was not inherently problematic under the Code but emphasised that producers needed to take care that the packaging did not inadvertently have a particular appeal to contemporary children.
The Panel discussed rainbow sherbet sour laces and noted that they were sweets that were still available and were typically marketed towards children in the sweet aisle of supermarkets. The Panel considered that while adults might enjoy the sweets as a nostalgic reminder of childhood, rainbow sour laces would have a strong appeal to under-18s who would readily recognise the sweet as an item often aimed at their age group. The Panel discussed a similar precedent case, ‘Taurus Cider Strawberry Laces’, which was also named and flavoured after a contemporary lace sweet. The Panel considered that in that case, it was found that a drink’s flavour alone did not necessarily have a particular appeal to under-18s but it could contribute to how a drink would resonate with children. The Panel stated that a drink which had the capacity to resonate with children based on its flavour would need to ensure that the wider label presented in a mature and adult-like manner to reduce the risk of the packaging having a particular appeal to under-18s. The Panel considered that in this case, because the flavour of the drink would have a strong appeal to under-18s, it was important to consider how the flavour would fit into the overall impression conveyed by the packaging in its entirety. The Panel discussed the use of bright rainbows on the packaging and acknowledged that a rainbow in and of itself did not necessarily create a particular appeal to under-18s as it is used as a symbol throughout many different communities, such as the LGBTQIA+ community or as a way of demonstrating support for the NHS. The Panel discussed the presentation of the rainbows and noted that they were not designed to appear solely as rainbows but that the size and shape of them were far more reminiscent of rainbow lace sweets and that this impression was accentuated by the flavour of the drink. The Panel noted that there were numerous rainbows over-lapping which further resembled the sweets which usually came as multiple strips in a pack together. Therefore, in this specific context, the Panel considered that the dominant theme of rainbow lace sweet imagery and accompanying sweet-flavoured language, reference to childhood and bright primary colours all combined to give an overall impression that the product had a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).
Action by Company:
Working with the Advisory Service.
Producer:
Manchester Drinks
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 particular appeal of a “”magical unicorn drink”” carrying unicorn illustrations, flowers, whimsical pink text and a candy-pink liquid, with its “”notes of candy floss and marshmallows””, to under-18s, especially young girls, is clear in this product. The promise that this drink will “”transport you to the mystical land of unicorns””, “”cut with magical mountain water””, and multiple references in the text on the label to magic suggest therapeutic qualities to its intoxicating effect, and where drunkenness might magically transport the mood of the consumer”.
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
Under Code paragraph 3.2(j)
3.2(j) A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest that the product has therapeutic qualities, can enhance mental or physical capabilities, or change mood or behaviour.
UPHELD
The company’s submission
The company expressed surprise regarding the complaint about Mystical Unicorn Gin Liqueur and stated that it had been on sale since April 2019 without any prior issue. The company acknowledged the comments made in the complaint but clarified that the gin was sold in the alcohol aisle at Home Bargains, where underage individuals would be challenged if attempting to purchase it. Addressing concerns about the marshmallow flavour, the company argued that sweet flavour profiles were common in alcoholic beverages. The company explained that the term ‘Mystical’ referred to the water used in the drink, sourced from the Mullaghmesha mountain in West Cork, Ireland, which had historical mysticism. The company expressed willingness to have the Panel provide feedback on the label and was committed to making necessary amendments as a responsible drinks manufacturer.
The Panel’s assessment
3.2(h)
The Panel considered whether the packaging could have a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant. For context, the Panel discussed two similar case precedents, Realm of the Unicorn Premium Gin Liqueur and Unicorn Tears Raspberry Gin Liqueur. The Panel noted that in the case of Realm of the Unicorn Premium Gin Liqueur, the mature illustration and level of detail used to depict the unicorn meant that it presented as adult fantasy art in style. Whereas, in the case of Unicorn Tears Raspberry Gin Liqueur, the cartoon style image, which included thick black key lines and simple imagery presented in a manner which the Panel had deemed had a particular appeal to under-18s. With precedent in mind, the Panel noted that unicorns could have broad appeal to all age groups given their symbolism but that compliance would be determined by the presentation of the unicorn and the overall impression conveyed by the product.
The Panel considered the front label and noted that it included a large black diamond with a gold trimmed border which was surrounded by two unicorn heads and flowers. The Panel noted that the illustrations had used a fine line drawing technique with intricate, detailed line strokes included on the unicorn’s hair and the accompanying flowers. The Panel considered that the art style and level of detail meant that the illustration presented as adult fantasy artwork rather than a cartoon drawing aimed at children which was usually much simpler and less complex. The Panel discussed the use of colours on the label, noting the majority of the label was black with a golden trim alongside minimal use of pastel pink, green and lilac used in the illustration. The Panel considered that there were no strong contrasts between the colours and with the absence of primary colours and thick bold key lines the label was presented in a sophisticated manner.
The Panel then considered the rest of the packaging to determine whether there was anything else which could have a particular appeal to under-18s. The Panel considered the bottle, noting that the shape was fairly typical for a Gin Liqueur but that the liquid was bright pink and had a shimmering quality when the bottle was shaken. The Panel noted that a visible vibrant shade of pink which shimmered would likely have a level of appeal to under-18s, especially when presented alongside depictions of unicorns and flowers. The Panel discussed the flavour of the drink ‘candy floss and marshmallow’ and considered that this could also contribute to the packaging having a level of appeal to children because of the association with sweet confectionary items. The Panel acknowledged that the flavours were not presented in a particularly prominent way on the front label and considered that on balance, this did help reduce the risk of appeal to under-18s because the drink was not principally marketed on its sweet flavour. The Panel debated these elements at length and concluded that inclusion of a sweet flavour and shimmering liquid in this instance was not enough to cause the packaging to have a particular appeal in the context of a sophisticated artwork design. The Panel considered that the packaging could have a certain level of appeal to children and that the product was close to the line of acceptability given the inclusion of a sweet flavour and shimmering pink liquid in the context of unicorns which could also have a strong appeal to children depending on their depiction. However, with regard to previous precedent, the Panel concluded that the presentation of the sophisticated label, the lack of strong contrasting colours and the detailed complex illustrations meant that the packaging did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).
3.2(j)
The Panel considered whether the packaging suggested that the product had therapeutic qualities, could enhance mental or physical capabilities, or change mood or behaviour as raised by the complainant. The Panel first assessed the front label which included the text “small batch gin traditionally distilled & cut with magical mountain water. Infused with candy floss and marshmallow. Shake to awake the magic”. The Panel discussed the company’s response that the reference to magic water was intended to communicate that the water was sourced from Mullaghmesha mountain in West Cork. The Panel assessed the label further and noted that there was nothing on the packaging to provide that context to a consumer. The Panel noted text on the back label which read “Pink fluffy unicorns dancing on rainbows inspire this magical unicorn drink that has notes of candy floss and marshmallows to transport you to the mystical land of unicorns, be sure to shake the bottle to awake the mysteries contained within”. Whilst the Panel could understand the producer’s point that the text was intended to be a whimsical reference celebrating the area where some of the ingredients were sourced, the Panel was concerned that without further context, the literal implication the drink would ‘transport’ a consumer to a magical land directly suggested that the drink could change a consumer’s perception of reality. The Panel noted that this interpretation was compounded by the instruction to ‘shake’ the drink to awaken its ‘mysteries’, whilst also ‘transporting’ a consumer mentally to a more whimsical world and therefore changing their mood. On that basis, the Panel considered that the text directly implied that consumption of the drink could change a person’s mood. Accordingly, the Panel upheld the complaint under Code rule 3.2(j).
Action by Company:
Working with the Advisory Service.
Complaints against two products have been upheld by the alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel (ICP), the full decisions can be read here and here.
The complaints, made by Zenith Global Commercial Ltd, as part of the Portman Group’s independent proactive audit of the UK market[1], were against Gweilo’s Rainbow Sherbet Sour Beer and against Manchester Drinks’ Mystical Unicorn Gin Liqueur.
Considering, the overall impression conveyed by Rainbow Sherbet Sour the Panel concluded that the combination of the confectionary theme, name, lack of a recognised beer descriptor, rainbow background and relatively small positive alcohol cues meant that the drink’s alcoholic nature was not communicated with absolute clarity. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.1.
The Panel also concluded that the theme of rainbow laces, sweets imagery and sweet-flavoured language, reference to childhood and bright primary colours all combined to give an overall impression that the product had a particular appeal to under-18s, therefore this complaint was also upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).
Zenith Global raised two concerns against Manchester Drinks’ Mystical Unicorn Gin Liqueur, the first under Code Rule 3.2(h), that the product had a particular appeal to under-18s, and Code Rule 3.2(j), whereby a product should not suggest that it has therapeutic qualities, can enhance mental or physical capabilities, or change mood or behaviour.
Under Code Rule 3.2(h) the Panel considered that the packaging could have a certain level of appeal to children and that it was close to the line of acceptability given the inclusion of a sweet flavour, shimmering pink liquid and unicorn imagery. However, the Panel concluded that the sophisticated label, lack of strong contrasting colours and detailed illustrations meant that the packaging did not have a particular appeal to under-18s, and so the complaint was not upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).
Under Code Rule 3.2(j), the Panel concluded that the words on the label suggested that the drink would ‘transport’ a consumer to a magical land and could change their perception of reality. This was compounded by the instruction to ‘shake’ the drink to awaken its ‘mysteries’, whilst ‘transporting’ a consumer mentally to a more whimsical world. On that basis the Panel upheld the complaint under Code rule 3.2(j).
Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Rachel Childs, said: “Both these cases demonstrate the fine line between universal appeal to all ages and particular appeal to under-18s. When it comes to Code Rule 3.2 (h), the Panel must carefully consider the combination of elements on a product’s label as well as looking at precedent-setting cases from the past to decide when a product tips over that line of acceptability.”
Richard Benjamin, Managing Director of Manchester Drinks, said: “We appreciate the Panel’s acceptance that the label graphics are not appealing to under 18’s and we accept that the text on the back of the label could have been written with a clearer message and we are making the necessary changes to the back of our labels written text immediately.”
[1] Part of the independent proactive audit of the Naming and Packaging of Alcoholic Drinks Code, Sixth Edition Amended
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.