Company: The Spirit Hop and Grape Company
Breach: No
Final Decision: 10 July 2001
Considered under the 2nd Edition of the Code.
Complaint summary
“This product’s name I believe breaks two clauses of your Code, clause 3.1(e) by suggesting sexual success or prowess and clause 2.1(h) as it seems that it is more likely to appeal to under 18s than adults. I think you will find the product’s website (http://www.shagdrinks.com) strongly shows that this product is not being marketed in a responsible way.”
Complainant
Member of the public from London.
Decision
Under Code paragraph 3.1(e)
The brand name, product descriptor, packaging (including any containers and any external wrapping), labelling and point of sale materials of any alcoholic drink should not in any direct or indirect way suggest sexual success or prowess.
NOT UPHELD
Under Code paragraph 3.1(h)
The brand name, product descriptor, packaging (including any containers and any external wrapping), labelling and point of sale materials of any alcoholic drink should not in any direct or indirect way be more likely to appeal to under 18s than adults.
NOT UPHELD
The company’s submission
The company submitted examples of other company’s packaging and marketing practices of a range of alcoholic products.
The Panel’s assessment
The Panel noted that the product name had been registered as a trade mark with The Patent Office. However, the Panel did not consider the existence of a trade mark registration to be relevant to its consideration of the product under the Code.
The Panel noted further the examples submitted by the company featuring the packaging and marketing practices of a range of alcoholic products but pointed out that these were irrelevant to its consideration of the product in question as each case is considered separately and on its own merits.
The Panel also pointed out that the websites were not within its remit. Hence, although it had viewed the company website, the Panel made its decision without taking into account the material contained in it.
The word “shag” has several meanings, depending on the context in which it was used. Whilst the primary meaning of the word was the name of a seabird, it had also become a well-established term for sexual intercourse. The Panel considered that nowadays the word “shag” was more commonly understood as a reference to sexual intercourse than the name of a seabird. Many people would not be aware of the primary meaning of the word and so would see the word “shag” as a humorous reference to sexual intercourse. However, in the Panel’s view, even though the name “Shag” was likely to be understood in that way, the use of the name did not suggest sexual success or prowess.
Hence, the Panel did not uphold the complaint under paragraph 3.1(e) of the Code.
The representation of the seabird on the label of the product bore some resemblance to an actual shag seabird. Overall, the Panel did not consider that the name of the product or its packaging were more likely to appeal to under 18s than to adults.
Hence, the Panel did not uphold the complaint under paragraph 3.1(h) of the Code.
Action by company
No action required.