A complaint against Blackeye London Dry Gin has been not upheld by the alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel (ICP), the full decision can be read here.
The complaint, made by a member of the public, raised concerns that the name of the gin suggested an association with violence and aggression.
The Panel considered whether the name of the product could suggest any association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour, under Code rule 3.2(b).
The Panel heard that the product was created by Mike Tindall, James Haskell and Alex Payne, three prominent figures and advocates for the game of rugby. The company stated that the drink was a purpose-led brand with a mission to address the financial and medical challenges faced by rugby players.
The Panel discussed the name ‘Blackeye’ and stated that while the name could have several interpretations, it was commonly understood as bruising and swelling to the eye region of the face. While a ‘black eye’ injury could be the result of a violent attack, it was also a common injury sustained through contact sport or other incidents unrelated to physical assault. They concluded that the name alone in this case did not create an association with violent or aggressive behaviour and needed to be considered in the wider context of the rest of the packaging.
The Panel assessed the rest of the packaging and noted that the front label employed a fairly simple design. The name ‘Blackeye’ was included on imagery that did somewhat resemble an eye but noted that this was designed to be abstract and stylised. The Panel noted that there was no violent or aggressive imagery included on the front label nor was there any depiction of an injury.
Considering the back label the Panel noted that there were references to rugby, rugby ball imagery and the Blackeye Rugby Fund, providing further context to the name ‘Blackeye’ and the product’s clear aim to use proceeds to address the financial and medical challenges faced by rugby players.
The Panel noted that the overall impression of the product explicitly linked to rugby, a rules-based contact sport and whilst it could result in injury, injuries did not directly link to intentional violence. Taking the above into account, the Panel considered that the name and packaging did not create an association with violent or aggressive behaviour. Accordingly, the Panel did not uphold the complaint under Code rule 3.2(b).
Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Rachel Childs said: “It’s vitally important under the Code that producers ensure their products do not make any link to bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour. In this instance, the Panel concluded that the packaging of Blackeye London Dry Gin, although referencing a common sporting injury, did not make a link with intentional aggression or violence and therefore did not fall foul of the Code. The Panel did not uphold the complaint.”