Company: Matthew Clark Brands Limited
Breach: No
Final Decision: 18 August 1997
Considered under the 1st Edition of the Code.
Complaint summary
“Diamond Zest has been subject to a previous complaint, referred to the National Association of Cider Makers, over possible confusion of the packaging with a standard 330ml soft drink can. [We] support this complaint and would draw attention to the need to further highlight alcohol content of the product.”
Complainant
Health Education Authority
Decision
The Panel noted that the product had been subject to a previous complaint, referred to the National Association of Cider Makers, over possible confusion of the packaging with a standard 330ml soft drink can. The Panel did not consider itself bound or constrained by that other complaint.
It was not clear which version of the product the complainant was complaining about. Therefore, as the complainant had suggested, the Panel considered the current versions of the packaging, that is to say the can and the bottle label showing the name of the drink (“Diamond Zest”) written vertically.
The Panel noted the Company’s point of view as expressed in its letter of 16th June 1997, to the effect that the the new labelling should avoid any confusion with soft drinks and that no-one looking at the bottle or can should be in doubt as to the nature of the product they are purchasing.
Packaging:
The Panel considered whether the alcoholic nature and strength of the product are sufficiently clearly communicated, as required by Paragraph 3.1 of the Code. The Panel considered that they were, and accordingly, the complaint was not upheld by the Panel under that Paragraph.
The Panel went on to consider Paragraph 3.5 of the Code which provides that packaging and point of sale materials should ensure that there can be no confusion of identity with a non-alcoholic product. In the Panel’s view, although the can is similar in shape and size to cans commonly used for sales of soft drinks, nonetheless there should be no confusion in this particular case. Accordingly, the Panel decided that Paragraph 3.5 of the Code is not infringed by this product.
Action by company
No action required.