more specifics on labeling

This note is in response to Tom's comment about looking up the regulations regarding labeling to see what's allowable.
[See the original post here]

27CFR§4.39(a)(1) is the TTB regulation which is most pertinent [scroll down to the appropriate spot]:
(1) Any statement that is false or untrue in any particular, or that, irrespective of falsity, directly, or by ambiguity, omission, or inference, or by the addition of irrelevant, scientific or technical matter, tends to create a misleading impression.
My claim would be that the use of the symbol is misleading. Still, it's not that convincing of an argument - at least not as far as the regulations are concerned...

In essence the TTB is mainly charged with protecting existing brands, and individuals & organizations from others copying them or implying that they endorse the wine (no use of a symbol or logo from a company not producing the product). Consumers are protected by prohibiton of false or misleading claims. The public is also protected from "obscene or indecent" labels...but apparently not labels which portray the product as poison. From 27CFR§4.39(a)(3) we see the prohibition of...
(3) Any statement, design, device, or representation which is obscene or indecent.

I get the feeling that the symbol was not rejected because it wasn't being used by some other company, or as a logo by anyone (who would, after all?).

But I still stand by my claim that the 'Poizin' dress is misleading, and there is a need to maintain international hazard symbols for just that - hazards - and stop diluting those symbols by using them for other mundane things...
I also think that the poizin dress would a) be a good target for a class action suit [a big liability for a winery which just spent a sizeable sum on a new facility], b) fail a "reasonable person" test as far as appropriateness, and c) appeals to the juvenile intellects of some adults in rather poor taste.