NEWS

Deception of origin – misleading commercial practices

LG Munich I Judgment, December 8th, 2023, Ref. 37 O 2041/23 – Climate-neutral beer?

 Contents

Background to the dispute

The beer bottle bore the Munich address, which represents the brewery’s administrative headquarters. The defendant had argued, among other things, that the indication of the administrative centre on the bottle was required by law.

According to the Munich I Regional Court, consumers would infer the production site of Wunderbräu from the label on the back of the beer bottle (with the street known for breweries in Munich). This information misleads consumers about the production site/place of origin, as Wunderbräu does not produce in Munich. This constitutes a deception of origin that is also capable of influencing consumers’ decisions. This is irrespective of the fact that the “designation in itself is also permissible for the defendant as a distribution company and the indication as a whole also fulfils the legal requirements”.

“Climate neutral” and “CO2 positive balance”

The defendant had argued that a QR code on the bottle informed consumers about the CO2-positive and climate-neutral production.

According to the court, this information is also unlawfully misleading. In the age of “greenwashing” – where false or misleading claims are made about the environmental friendliness of a product, service or company – consumers have an interest in being precisely informed about the measures taken. This includes information on how climate neutrality is achieved and what offsetting measures are taken. Assessment criteria for “CO2 positive” and “climate-neutral production” must therefore be disclosed on the beer bottle.

In the present case, the environmentally friendly advertising on the beer bottle does not indicate that further information is available on the homepage. The QR code provided by the defendant is located on the beer bottle at a distance from the environmental advertising. There must be a clear and unambiguous reference to a link on the beer bottle with regard to the environmental advertising (especially because the consumer has to go online to obtain the information).The court also added that the QR code did not lead directly to a website explaining the climate-friendly measures – consumers would have to click through to get to the information.

There were also considerable doubts as to whether the information provided on the defendant’s website was sufficient. There is no precise information there, neither about the carbon footprint nor the extent to which climate neutrality is to be achieved through compensation measures or savings.

The advertising of the beer with “CO2 positive” or “climate-neutral production” on the beer bottle is therefore unlawfully misleading (Section 5 UWG) and must be omitted.

The judgement is not legally binding.

To the point

An address on the beer bottle can be misleading as regards to its origin if there is a risk that consumers think that this is the place where the beer is produced. This is against Section 5 UWG.

In the age of greenwashing, a high degree of transparency must be required for environmental advertising on a product, i.e. the consumer must be able to obtain clear and unambiguous information about the climate-friendly measures. Otherwise, this also constitutes a misleading commercial practice, Section 5 UWG.

Source: Press release 32 from 08/12/2023 LG Munich I

more News

Copyright

TikTok publishes films without authorisation – no release from liability according to the Act on the Copyright Liability of Online Content Sharing Service Providers (UrhDaG)

Delaying tactics in the negotiations with the copyright owner do not comply with the licence obligation under Section 4 UrhDaG (Act on the Copyright Liability of Online Content Sharing Service Providers).
Trademark Law

There is a likelihood of association between the figurative mark “Greenlyst” and the word mark “LYST”

The sign “Lyst” was copied identically in the trademark “Greenlyst”. This is not automatically sufficient to confirm a likelihood of confusion. In the present case “Lyst” could suceed against “Greenlyst”.
Trademark Law

The Independent characteristic position of the Opposition Mark “COCO” in the challenged trademark “HiCoco”

CHANEL partially prevails – The Federal Patent Court in Germany (BPatG) rules that “HiCoco” cannot be claimed for perfume in Class 3.

Karin Simon
Lawyer
Certified IP Lawyer

Susanne Graeser
Lawyer
Certified IP Lawyer

Uhlandstr. 2
80336 Munich
Germany

Phone +49 89 90 42 27 51-0
Fax +49 89 90 42 27 51-9

Karin Simon
Rechtsanwältin

Fachanwältin für
gewerblichen Rechtsschutz

Susanne Graeser
Rechtsanwältin

Fachanwältin für
gewerblichen Rechtsschutz

Uhlandstr. 2
D-80336 München

Tel. +49 89 90 42 27 51-0
Fax +49 89 90 42 27 51-9