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
AI / Trademark Law

AI-driven trademark abuse: Why “register first, use later” is becoming riskier

AI tools make it easier to identify unprotected brand names. For businesses, this can quickly become costly on platforms such as Amazon.

Munich Regional Court I: Google must answer for false AI responses

Munich Regional Court I prohibited Google from further disseminating false statements from an “AI Overview”. The AI response was attributed to the search engine operator as its own statement.
Trademark Law

BGH “Mehmet Efendi”: No exhaustion from placing goods on the market in Turkey – association agreement does not extend the EEA

The BGH confirms: Placing EU trade mark goods on the market in Turkey does not trigger exhaustion within the EEA. The EEC–Turkey association framework does not extend the territorial scope of exhaustion; parallel imports into the EEA can be prohibited without the proprietor’s consent.
Trademark Law

BGH “LA BIOSTHETIQUE”: German courts have jurisdiction for targeted online advertising – supplier disclosure may be disproportionate

The BGH aligns international jurisdiction for online trademark infringement with the target market: what matters is where the addressed consumers/traders are located—not the server location or the advertiser’s seat. It also held that disclosure of suppliers/prior owners may exceptionally be disproportionate where the infringement lies solely in the presentation of exhausted goods.
Trade Secrets

CJEU: Infringing “possession” covers stock held abroad—and also indirect possession

The CJEU clarifies that trade mark owners may prohibit “possession” under Art. 10(3)(b) Directive 2015/2436 even where goods are stocked in another Member State—if intended for offering/placing on the market in the protection state. “Possession” also includes indirect control (supervisory/managerial authority).
Trademark Law

General Court: “Eco” may still shape the overall impression despite being descriptive

The General Court clarifies that descriptive elements can still matter in the comparison of signs—especially when placed at the beginning and drawing attention due to their length/position.

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