Relevant

Ban on self-certified sustainability labels – GREENWASHING II

Ban on self-certified sustainability labels – GREENWASHING II

From 27 September 2026, the EmpCo Directive will impose an absolute ban on ‘self-certified’ sustainability labels and logos in the European Union. This is because this kind of labelling risks a lack of transparency and reliability, as well as making it more difficult for consumers to compare products and services based on sustainability – to which they are increasingly attaching importance when making purchasing decisions. In almost half of the active eco-labels in the EU analysed by the European Commission, no, or insufficient, verification of the products or services had been carried out. Self-certified sustainability labels are also a threat to fair competition. So what is the scope of the ban on them and what will the consequences be?

Please read on

Ban on generic environmental claims – greenwashing

Ban on generic environmental claims – greenwashing

On 6 March 2024, Directive (EU) 2024/825 was published, aimed at preventing so-called ‘greenwashing’ commercial practices, as well as the use of misleading labelling in relation to sustainability – for example, in brand names and/or company names, Known as the EmpCo Directive, once transposed into national law, it will apply to companies from 27 September 2026. It is vital that company owners and managers familiarise themselves now with these important rules, as dealt with in this blog. Among other things, the EmpCo Directive protects consumers against what are considered unfair commercial practices. This article will focus on one of these, namely the prospective ban on making any generic environmental claim about a product, brand or business, for which the trader is not able to demonstrate recognised excellent environmental performance that is also relevant to the claim.

Please read on

Revocation for non-use? – FOHLENELF

Revocation for non-use? – FOHLENELF

A trade mark lapses if it has not been put to genuine use during a particular period of time. What conditions must be fulfilled to avoid such a lapse? The trade mark ‘Fohlenelf’ [foals team], belonging to the well-known German football club Borussia Mönchengladbach, was attacked for non-use. What was the outcome of the case?

Please read on

Nail in the coffin for brands: Lack of distinctiveness – KÖLNER DOM

Nail in the coffin for brands: Lack of distinctiveness – KÖLNER DOM

It’s not easy to think of a concept – similar to Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity – that, counterintuitively, involves the relativity of apparently fixed quantities. However, the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) and the European Court of Justice (ECJ) may have produced such a phenomenon: their case law on the distinctiveness and thus the protectability of the names of famous buildings as trade marks. The two decisions have implications for a large number of commercially relevant cases, such as trade marks for fan merchandise or event trade marks. The lack of distinctiveness of a mark should therefore be carefully examined.

Please read on

Deletion of disruptive domains – energy-collect.de

Deletion of disruptive domains – energy-collect.de

Third-party domains that are identical to your own company name not only redirect (potential) online customers to another website; they also severely impair your company’s ability to carry out effective advertising and marketing. Could an application for deletion of a domain that disrupts your business in this way assist? Or do you just have to live with the disadvantages and even change the name of your company if necessary?

Please read on

Brand use in the product development phase? – Boswelan

Brand use in the product development phase? – Boswelan

A common way for a company to get rid of troublesome trade mark registrations by a potential competitor is to file for cancellation on the basis of non-use. This situation can prove particularly dangerous for companies that are in the process of developing the product for which the mark is intended. In such cases, how can genuine use of the mark be demonstrated in the product development phase? Alternatively, when is non-use justified so that the trade mark cannot be cancelled? This issue is relevant not only to new trade mark applications, but also to the acquisition of existing trade marks for a future product.

Please read on

Badly thought-out list of goods? – Gufic

Badly thought-out list of goods? – Gufic

Are there any issues to consider when drawing up a list of goods that a trade mark is intended to cover? Surely cosmetics are cosmetics! Food supplements are food supplements! And medicines are just medicines! If a trade mark is genuinely used for these products, could it still be subject to revocation on the grounds of non-use in relation to a different classification of goods?… For example, if the use of a mark for food supplements is in fact a use for pharmaceuticals? Ensure you consider carefully the list of goods covered by your trade mark!

Please read on

The cost of a trade mark infringement via advertising? – LAYHER

The cost of a trade mark infringement via advertising? – LAYHER

There may be a number reasons for mentioning a third party’s trade mark in your own advertising. But be careful that such advertising cannot be mistaken for that of the trade mark owner. It is also important not to mislead people about the nature of your business relationship with the trade mark owner. It is helpful to know how damages are quantified in such cases.

Please read on

Difference is crucial – HYLO

Difference is crucial – HYLO

When formulating a new brand, developers often modify the terms of certain significant features of a product or ingredient, with this modification resulting in a new word. It is no longer simply descriptive, as would be the case if the original word was used, and it can therefore be registered as a trade mark. Problems arise when competitors have already had the same idea! Especially if they have a prior trade mark using the same or similar content. So what can one do, in this situation, to avoid getting into trouble later on? An unpublished decision of the Oberlandesgericht München (Munich Higher Regional Court), obtained by the author, provides important guidance.

Please read on

Is it worth investing in weak brands? – Vegan

Is it worth investing in weak brands? – Vegan

Any company can opt to use a weak mark that directly highlights the special characteristics of its products or services, though such a mark may well be denied registration, because it is considered merely descriptive of products or services. But if it does make it into the trade mark register, it cannot be denied protection altogether. So is it worth taking the chance and investing in weak brands?

Please read on