NEWS

Misleading advertising with “climate neutral”

OLG Düsseldorf of 06.07.2023 – 20 U 152/22 also tastes good for the climate

 Contents

Information obligations for advertising with the term "climate neutral"

A confectionery manufacturer had printed on its product packaging since 2021 xxx produces all products climate neutral” and the certificate “climate neutral product ClimatePartner.com”. The plaintiff was of the opinion that this advertising was misleading, as consumers understand the information as an indication of an emission-free manufacturing process.

CO2 balance

The claim was dismissed as the court was of the opinion that the term “climate neutral” is not necessarily understood in the sense of an emission-free manufacturing process, but in the sense of a balanced carbon footprint.. If a company takes measures to avoid CO2 or (also) carries out offsetting measures, advertising with “climate neutral” can be considered.

Climate neutral with certificates

However, consumers do not assume that the company achieves climate neutrality solely by purchasing emissions certificates or through third-party offsetting measures. From the consumer’s point of view, companies that do not implement effective measures to reduce emissions themselves are suspected of “greenwashing”. Consumers must therefore be informed about the exact way in which climate neutrality is achieved.

Accessible information

The additional information must be provided in the advert itself or in the immediate vicinity of the advert; a statement “Climate neutrality is also achieved through offsetting”, combined with a QR code or an easily accessible website on the product, may be sufficient to provide the required information. The information provided must be easily accessible and understandable.

At the point

This judgment clarifies the advertiser’s duty to inform consumers. Anyone advertising with the term “climate neutral” must explain why the product is labeled as “climate neutral”, either due to their own savings measures or (only) through offsetting. Jurisdiction regarding the “climate neutral” is not finalized. It is still unclear whether advertising with “climate neutral” is permissible if the company does not make any own efforts to reduce its CO2 emissions.

MORE NEWS
AI

AI labelling under Article 50 of the EU AI Act: What applies from August 2026

The transparency obligations under Article 50 of the EU AI Act apply from 2 August 2026. However, the Regulation does not establish a general labelling obligation for all AI-assisted content.
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).

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