Ginger Thins: there's no accounting for taste

Taste is subjective and therefore it cannot be copyrighted, was the ruling in the Heksenkaas case. In this Advertising Code Committee case the issue is not the copyright on taste, but the expectation of the taste of a biscuit based on the packaging.

The complainant filed a complaint against the packaging of spicy Scandinavian biscuits from Lidl with the name 'Ginger Thins'. According to the complainant, the name 'Ginger Thins' would be misleading as it would give the incorrect impression that ginger would be a dominant ingredient. Also, the taste would not match the expectation of the complainant now that the biscuit would taste predominantly of cinnamon instead of ginger. Both the chairman and the entire Advertising Code Committee take issue with this. Taste is subjective and the name 'Ginger Thins' alone is insufficient to expect that the biscuits would have a distinct ginger taste.

The designation 'Ginger Thins' for the thin, spicy biscuits common in Scandinavia is not misleading either because - fully in line with ECJ Teekanne - the average consumer takes note of the entire packaging. And the packaging leaves no doubt. For example, the text 'Thin and crispy spiced biscuits' is clear directly under the designation 'Ginger Thins' while the designation 'spicy biscuit' is above the list of ingredients. The average consumer will conclude from the ingredient list that the product contains 0.6% cinnamon and 0.2% ginger. The serving suggestion of cinnamon sticks on the front of the packaging also confirms the only correct conclusion: the average consumer understands that this is a spicy biscuit with cinnamon and ginger. There is no question of deception, the Chairman's decision is affirmed and the complaint dismissed.  

Lisanne Steenbergen, together with Ebba Hoogenraad, handled this case for Lidl.