"Climate neutrality" put to the test – landmark judgement by the German Federal Court of Justice
Subject of the legal dispute:
The Wettbewerbszentrale, a qualified organisation for combating unfair competition, objected to an advertisement by Katjes in 2021 in the "Lebensmittel Zeitung". In the advert, Katjes advertised its products with the statement "Katjes has been producing all products climate-neutrally since 2021" and used a corresponding label. The Wettbewerbszentrale considered this advertising to be misleading and complained that essential information was missing.
Decision of the German Federal Court of Justice:
On 27 June 2024, the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) handed down its long awaited judgment on this matter (see I ZR 98/23).
The BGH overturned the judgement of the Düsseldorf Appeal Court, which had dismissed the action brought by the Wettbewerbszentrale. As a consequence, the BGH prohibited Katjes from continuing to advertise with the objectionable statement.
In doing so, the BGH primarily emphasises that special legal standards apply to the assessment of environmental advertising claims. Similar to advertising with health-related claims, advertising with environmental terms and symbols is subject to particularly strict requirements regarding the accuracy, unambiguity and clarity of the advertising claim.
The BGH sees the main reason for this in the fact that, as a result of the general recognition of the environment as a valuable asset in need of protection, an increased environmental awareness has developed and the public therefore often favours goods and services whose particular environmental compatibility is pointed out. Such purchasing behaviour is also encouraged by the fact that advertising measures linked to environmental protection prove to be particularly suitable for appealing to emotional areas in people, ranging from concern for their own health to a sense of responsibility for future generations.
It is not uncommon for the meaning and content of the terms used - such as "environmentally friendly", "environmentally compatible", "environmentally friendly" or "organic" - to be unclear. In addition, the advertised products are regularly not more or less environmentally friendly or less environmentally destructive than other goods in every respect, but usually only in certain areas. In addition, the general public usually has little factual knowledge of the scientific correlations and interactions.
It follows from these circumstances that, in principle, strict requirements must be placed on the explanatory information necessary to avoid being misleading, which are determined in each individual case according to the type of product and the degree and extent of its "environmental friendliness". In the case of an advert that uses an ambiguous environmental term, these requirements are generally only fulfilled if the advert itself clearly and unambiguously explains which specific meaning is relevant. The advertiser must accept the different meanings in the event of ambiguity in its advertising statement.
An explanation in the advertising itself is necessary when using the term "climate neutral", which includes both the avoidance of CO2 emissions and CO2 compensation, in particular because the reduction and compensation of CO2 emissions are not equivalent measures for achieving climate neutrality. Rather, the principle of prioritising reduction over offsetting applies.
Information provided outside of the advertising, which the consumer has to research, is not sufficient. This applies regardless of “space restrictions” on the means of communication chosen by the advertiser.
Relevance of the decision
Stricter requirements for green advertising statements are also in the works at EU level.
Directive (EU) 2024/825 on Empowering Consumers For The Green Transition (EmpCo Directive) came into force at the end of March and must be transposed into national law by the member states by the end of March 2026. As a result, the German legislator must include so-called "per se prohibitions", i.e. practice that are considered unfair per se without the courts having to examine their admissibility in specific cases. This includes, among other things, the claim that a product has a neutral, reduced or positive impact on greenhouse gas emissions due to offsetting measures. Statements such as "climate-neutral product", "CO2-neutral product" or "reduced CO2 footprint" are no longer permitted. Also, it will be prohibited to refer to future environmental performance with a statement such as "climate neutral by 2030" if the company has not made clear, objective, publicly available and verifiable commitments that are set out in a detailed and realistic implementation plan that has measurable and time-bound targets and is regularly reviewed by an independent expert.
The EU is also currently working on the Green Claims Directive ("GCD"), which will regulate further requirements for sustainability advertising. The European Parliament adopted its proposal on the EU Commission's original draft in March 2024.
Nevertheless, the BGH decision is of enormous relevance. This is because it emphasises once again that a strict standard applies to advertising with environmental protection terms and symbols, similar to health advertising, and that there are strict duties of disclosure. Ambiguities are generally at the expense of the advertiser.
Conclusion for companies
Against this background, companies should bear the following points in mind when advertising with environmental terms or labels:
- Precision: Make sure that your advertising claims are precise. Explain clearly to what extent your products or services have a positive environmental effect and what specific measures you are taking. Avoid misleading or ambiguous wording. And avoid general terms such as "environmentally friendly" or "sustainable" and use specific, measurable claims instead.
- Avoidance before compensation: If possible, emphasise measures that avoid environmental impacts, as these are generally rated more positively than compensation measures.
- Legal advice: If in doubt, seek legal advice to ensure that your advertising complies with the applicable regulations and does not contain any misleading statements. A lot is currently in flux here. It is therefore important to stay informed.
We will be happy to advise you on this!
You might also be interested in this
The European Union has implemented significant reforms to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The changes, which took effect on September 1, 2024, are designed to improve the efficiency of the court system and increase transparency in its operations.
The law of jurisdiction contains a number of pitfalls which are often underestimated in practice, particularly at the interface between contractual and tort claims. In this article, we discuss a recent decision of the Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe (Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court), which had to rule on a claim brought by a journalist who had unsuccessfully challenged the blocking of his account on an internet platform on the grounds of a breach of the law on unfair competition (OLG Karlsruhe, Urt. v. 8.Mai 2024,Az.6U198/23).
So-called repeat filings, often intended to circumvent the obligation to put the trademark to genuine use and thus taking advantage of further grace periods for the refiled trademarks, might seem attractive in particular to reduce costs. However, they also involve the risk of finding bad faith at least under EU law. The concept of bad faith is not legally defined but is shaped by the respective case-law. In this respect, the “Monopoly” Judgment of the General Court sets forth relevant principles and provides important strategic guidelines. Furthermore, the recent decisions of the Cancellation Division of the EUIPO regarding the trademarks of the famous artist Banksy representing one of his best known artworks, the Flower Thrower, demonstrate the importance of having a sound strategy behind any trademark filing. In the following, we will have a closer look at these cases to illustrate the possible risks of repeat filings and to provide some advice on risk-minimizing trademark filing strategies.
If a business is held liable by another for an (alleged) infringement of their business identifier, the question always arises as to whether and how one can defend oneself against such claims. In most cases, consideration is then given to whether the business identifier lacks the distinctive character required for its protection. Or the question is raised as to whether the business identifier is used in the course of trade for a specific business operation close enough to the other party’s business. Or the questions of priority or similarity of signs and much more is dealt with. It is relatively seldom considered whether the business identifier may not enjoy protection at all because it is misleading and how this can be most effectively asserted in court. This article sheds a little light on this topic.
