NEWS

“Climate–neutral” cannot be used in advertising without further explanatory information

BGH judgment of 27/06/2024, I ZR 98/23 – “Climate neutral”

 Contents

Advertising with climate neutrality

The German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) does not follow the decisions of the Regional Court of Kleve (LG Kleve judgment of 22/06/2022, 8 O 44/21) and the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf (OLG Düsseldorf judgment of 06/07/2023, I 20 U 152/22).

klimaneutral

The BGH has clearly tightened the requirements for advertising with the term “climate neutral”. A well-known manufacturer of fruit gums and liquorice had advertised with the term “climate neutral” on its products, referring to a website for further information as follows:

For the lower courts, offsetting measures are sufficient for climate neutrality

The LG Kleve had dismissed the claim – climate neutrality is not emission-free and can also be achieved through compensation measures. The Higher Regional Court followed the Regional Court; consumers understand “climate neutral” as a balanced CO₂ emissions balance of the company, which can be achieved through the manufacturing process as well as through compensation measures. Nowadays, goods and services are advertised as climate–neutral, such as air travel, for which only compensation payments can help to achieve climate neutrality. This does not constitute misleading advertising in accordance with Section 5 (1) UWG (German law of unfair competition).

Special legal requirements for environmental protection terms

According to the case law of the BGH, the strict requirements for the correctness, unambiguity and clarity of the advertising statement, which are decisive for health-related advertising, also regularly apply to advertising with environmental terms and symbols. The risk of being misled is particularly high in the case of environmental and health–related advertising.

Precedence of reduction over compensation of CO₂ emissions

The term “climate-neutral” is ambiguous because it can be understood both as avoiding CO₂ emissions and in the sense of offsetting the company’s CO₂ emissions. An explanation is therefore necessary for clarification, because the reduction and compensation of CO₂ emissions are not equivalent measures for achieving climate neutrality.

Due to the special legal requirements for advertising with environmental claims, it is not sufficient to inform consumers outside of advertising. Informative references must always be made in the advertising itself.

Aufgrund der besonderen rechtlichen Anforderungen an Werbung mit Umweltaussagen genügt eine Aufklärung der Verbraucher außerhalb der Werbung nicht. Aufklärende Hinweise müssen grundsätzlich in der Werbung selbst erfolgen.

To the point

The BGH has clearly specified the requirements for advertising with environmental claims. Companies should already be guided by the requirements of the Empco Directive.

Source: Judgment of the First Civil Senate of 27/06/2024 – I ZR 98/23 – (bundesgerichtshof.de)

MORE NEWS
Trademark Law

AI & Branding: Europe’s brand work between “back to basics” and a GenAI leap

European marketing teams are putting branding back at the top for 2026—while GenAI is still rarely scaled broadly. At the same time, DPMA/EUIPO figures show sustained trademark activity.
Trademark Law

German Federal Court of Justice: No title protection for names of fictional film characters without an independent “life” – “Moneypenny”

The BGH clarifies: A fictional character’s name may in principle enjoy title protection—but only if the character itself is perceived as an independently “designatable” work (part) under trademark law. For “Moneypenny”, the court found insufficient individualisation and no sufficient detachment from the underlying work.
Trademark Law

GPTO enables EU-wide protection of regional products – new rights for craft and industrial goods

DPMA enables protection of geographical indications for industrial products such as knives, porcelain & watches – new EU regulation now in force.
Copyright / Design Law

Copyright protection for utilitarian objects: same test as for other works

The CJEU has held that utilitarian objects and works of applied art are protected by copyright under the same originality standard as any other category of works. It rejects a stricter threshold for everyday objects and provides detailed guidance on how national courts must assess originality and infringement in this context.
Copyright

Memorisation of AI training data infringes copyright

The Regional Court of Munich I has held that the memorisation of copyrighted training data in OpenAI’s GPT models infringes copyright. The judgment reshapes the legal framework for AI training and highlights key compliance risks for AI providers, rightsholders and companies using generative AI.

Using an outdated strikethrough price is misleading

The Wiesbaden Regional Court held that advertising with outdated, significantly higher strike-through prices is misleading and violates the German Price Indication Ordinance (PAngV) in conjunction with the UWG. Consumers understand crossed-out prices as the most recently charged price; if the reference price does not reflect that and there is no clear explanation, the ad suggests an overstated discount. Therefore, strike-through prices must be tied to the price immediately charged before the reduction.

Karin Simon
Lawyer
Certified IP Lawyer

Susanne Graeser
Lawyer
Certified IP Lawyer

Uhlandstr. 2
80336 Munich
Germany

Karin Simon
Rechtsanwältin
Fachanwältin für gewerblichen Rechtsschutz

Susanne Graeser
Rechtsanwältin
Fachanwältin für gewerblichen Rechtsschutz

Uhlandstr. 2
D-80336 München