Features

How Brand Owners Should Treat Green Claims After EmpCo Directive Takes Effect

Published: July 8, 2026

Mathis Breuer Hoyng Rokh Monegier Düsseldorf, Germany INTA Bulletins Correspondent

Member states of the European Union had to transpose Directive (EU) 2024/825 (the Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive, or EmpCo), which entered into force on March 26, 2024, into their own national law by March 27, 2026. It amends the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD) (2005/29/EC,) to add per se prohibitions on greenwashing. Its definition of an environmental claim expressly covers “brand names, company names or product names.” A registered sign is not shielded from that assessment merely by its trademark status.

EmpCo was originally meant to be accompanied by the Green Claims Directive, which would have added the requirement for strict ex ante substantiation and third-party verification duties. However, that addition has stalled. The Commission announced on June 20, 2025, that it intended to withdraw the proposal, and the legislative process has since been dormant, although, at the time of writing, the proposal has not been formally withdrawn. For the time being, EmpCo and general consumer-protection law therefore remain the main operative EU framework for environmental advertising.

The EmpCo Framework and its German Implementation

At the core of the Directive sits a single, deliberately broad definition. Under Article 2(o) of the amended UCPD, an environmental claim is any non-mandatory message or representation, in any form, stating or implying that a product, brand, or trader has a positive or zero environmental impact, is less damaging than alternatives, or has lessened its impact over time. The definition expressly covers not only explicit advertising claims but also colors, imagery, and—in particular—brand, company, and product names.

Within that framework, the Directive distinguishes between generic claims and those sufficiently specified to be assessed on their merits. A claim is generic where it asserts an environmental benefit only in unspecific terms (“eco-friendly”, “green”, “biodegradable”), that is, where it is neither backed by an approved sustainability label nor specified clearly and prominently on the same medium (Article 2(p)). Making such a claim is unfair per se (Annex I, point 4a) unless the trader can demonstrate recognized excellent environmental performance (Article 2(s)) relevant to the claim.

In practice, recognized excellent environmental performance will most clearly be shown by an EU Ecolabel or by meeting the criteria of an officially recognized EN ISO 14024 Type I scheme. With such proof remaining the exception rather than the rule, common generic uses of terms like “biodegradable” will often be difficult to sustain on their own. Other established third-party schemes, such as Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) or Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS), may still be relevant for certification, labeling, or substantiation purposes where they meet EmpCo’s requirements of openness, transparency, and independent monitoring, but they do not automatically turn a generic environmental claim into a permitted one.

Conversely, a claim specified on the same medium (“100 percent of the energy used to make this packaging comes from renewable sources”) is not generic in the first place and falls outside the per se prohibition—though it remains subject to the general misleading-practices test and must be accurate and fully substantiated.

Two further entries complete the picture: point 4b targets “halo” claims about a whole product or business that rest on a single aspect and point 4c prohibits product-level claims of neutral, reduced, or positive environmental impact where they are based on carbon offsetting.

Furthermore, sustainability labels—defined as any voluntary trust or quality mark promoting environmental or social characteristics (Article 2(q))—are banned per se (Annex I, point 2a), unless established by a public authority or based on a third-party certification scheme that is open, transparent, and independently monitored. Purely self-awarded sustainability badges will no longer suffice.

EmpCo amends the UCPD, a business-to-consumer (B2C) instrument: the UCPD governs business-to-consumer commercial practices, and purely business-to-business (B2B) conduct falls outside its scope. Member states may, however, extend comparable standards to B2B relations under national law—and several, including Germany, do so through their general unfair competition laws.

As the EU’s largest jurisdiction by population, Germany serves as a useful example for how this harmonization translates into national law. As EmpCo amends a maximum-harmonization instrument, the German legislature adopted the EU wording almost verbatim: the new definitions enter Section 2 of the German Act Against Unfair Competition (UWG), Section 5 UWG is sharpened, and the blacklist annexed to Section 3(3) UWG (the statutory list of automatically prohibited unfair commercial practices) takes over the per se prohibitions. The German provisions likewise apply strictly from September 27, 2026.

No Immunity for Registered Signs: A Trademark as Environmental Claim

These substantive prohibitions do not stop at advertising copy. The Directive’s most consequential feature for brand owners is that trademark registration does not preclude a sign’s assessment as an environmental claim—a sign may simultaneously qualify as both. The Commission’s Q&A, updated in May 2026, confirms that the UCPD does not exclude brand and product names merely because they enjoy IP protection. That assessment, the Q&A makes clear, is contextual and does not rest on any automatic presumption: Using a term such as “green” or “blue” in a brand or company name does not automatically constitute an environmental claim. The key question is whether, in the relevant commercial context, an average consumer—defined as a reasonably well-informed, observant, and circumspect person—would expect an environmental benefit.

The Directive's most consequential feature for brand owners is that trademark registration does not preclude a sign’s assessment as an environmental claim—a sign may simultaneously qualify as both.

The trademark layer and the unfair competition layer remain conceptually distinct. The fact that purely descriptive signs are unregistrable under trademark law does not protect a registered trademark with environmental connotations from being challenged as an environmental claim under unfair competition law: EmpCo and its national implementations attach to the message the average consumer actually perceives. A mark carrying an environmental reference therefore performs a dual function—a badge of origin and potentially also a vehicle for a sustainability message—and the new prohibitions and substantiation requirements apply to that communicative layer in the same way as they apply to other environmental claims.

Whether a registered mark can itself be classified as a sustainability label—and must therefore rest on an independent certification scheme (Annex I, point 2a)—remains highly contested. The Commission considers this unlikely but not impossible for ordinary individual marks. The German legislative materials take a comparatively narrow view: they suggest that ordinary individual marks should not normally be treated as sustainability labels, and that recognized independent consumer-test labels should also fall outside that concept.

That view is helpful, but not conclusive. It does not bind the courts, and it does not necessarily settle the position in other member states. Since certification-style logos are often filed as individual marks in practice, disputes are likely to turn less on the register and more on how consumers understand the sign in its actual commercial context.

Intellectual Property Offices’ Approach

In contrast, it is unlikely that the new rules will significantly shift the registration practice of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and the national trademark offices. At the time of writing, EUIPO has not published any EmpCo-specific changes to its examination guidelines, and examiners continue to assess applications against the established absolute grounds.

That does not mean, however, that trademark offices will become the main gatekeepers. In principle, the German Patent and Trademark Office (DPMA) could refuse a trademark whose use is clearly inadmissible under Section 8(2) No. 13 of the German trademark act Markengesetz (MarkenG), or on public-policy grounds under Section 8(2) No. 5 MarkenG. Both grounds, however, require the statutory prohibition to apply irrespective of the specific context of use. EmpCo’s prohibitions often turn precisely on that context: a generic environmental claim can be cured by an on-medium specification—the claim can be corrected or clarified by information provided in the same medium (for example, on the product packaging). A neutrality claim is unlawful only when it is based on offsetting, that is, if the claimed neutrality depends on the use of carbon offsets and not genuine emission reductions. Those circumstances cannot usually be assessed from the application as filed.

It is unlikely that the new rules will significantly shift the registration practice of the European Union Intellectual Property Office and the national trademark offices.

The outcome under EU trademark law is similar: in most cases, a breach of EmpCo is unlikely to meet the threshold of Article 7(1)(f) EU Trade Mark Regulation (EUTMR) (public policy) or Article 7(1)(g) EUTMR (deceptive marks), since the latter requires that no plausible non-deceptive use of the sign is conceivable.

The greater risk therefore lies not at the filing stage, but in use. Where the proprietor’s own use renders the trademark misleading as to the characteristics of the goods, the registration itself may also become vulnerable, including under Section 49(2) No. 2 MarkenG and Article 58(1)(c) EUTMR. A green mark whose environmental promise proves false may risk more than an injunction against its use.

Registered, Yet Unsalable: Enforcement and Consequences

What the Directive harmonizes, the member states enforce. Enforcement styles vary considerably across the EU: Germany operates a highly active private litigation model in which competitors and qualified consumer associations send warning letters and seek injunctions while other jurisdictions such as France and Italy lean more heavily on regulatory fines by public authorities, and the Netherlands’ Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) has been an early mover on greenwashing enforcement.

Taking Germany as a detailed benchmark—given its position as the EU’s largest market and its especially active unfair-competition forum—primarily, competitors and qualified consumer and competition associations are likely to pursue violations. The standard enforcement route is a formal warning letter carrying a costs claim and, failing an out-of-court settlement, a preliminary injunction or an action for injunctive relief. As the new blacklist entries are per se prohibitions, a claimant need not prove an actual effect on the average consumer’s transactional decision. Collective redress mechanisms may further increase the pressure where the alleged greenwashing affects a large number of consumers.

The most drastic legal consequence is specific to trademarks applied directly to goods. Where an impermissible trademark, claim, or label is printed on the product or its packagingrather than merely on detachable advertisingthe product itself may no longer be lawfully marketed: an injunction extends to the marked goods, so existing stock can become unsalable in its current state and must be pulled from distribution. A mark can thus be perfectly valid on the register yet prevent the sale of the very product it is meant to distinguish in the marketplace.

Alongside the legal consequences stands the reputational risk often the more lasting one. Greenwashing cases involving larger corporations are increasingly reaching senior courts and attracting public attention. The landmark Wettbewerbszentrale v. Katjes Fassin GmbH + Co. KG, Bundesgerichtshof [BGH] [Federal Court of Justice], Judgment of June 27, 2024, I ZR 98/23 (Klimaneutral) illustrates what is at stake: Although the pre-EmpCo decision was rooted in general unfair competition principles regarding consumer deception, the Court held that advertising a product as “climate-neutral” remains permissible in principle, but requires the advertiser to clarify, within the advertisement itself, whether neutrality is achieved through emissions reduction or carbon offsetting. A mere reference to an external website or QR code does not suffice. Such high-profile disputes often draw intense media coverage, non-governmental organization campaigns, and critical social media backlash. Once public doubt about the credibility of a sustainability message takes hold, it falls hardest on the very companies that position themselves as “green,” eroding customer trust.

Greenwashing cases involving larger corporations are increasingly reaching senior courts and attracting public attention.

Brand owners should not assume a right to run down inventory bearing non-compliant green marks after September 27, 2026, although some member states and industry bodies continue to press for a use-up allowance for already-produced packaging. Austria is a case in point: The Austrian branded goods association (MAV) has called for a three-year civil-law transition rule under which claims based on the new provisions could be brought only against goods placed on the market after September 27, 2026, effectively shielding stock already in circulation. Whether such a rule will be enacted, and whether it would be compatible with EU law, remain open questions.

The Commission’s position bears out that caution. Its May 2026 Q&A explicitly states that the EmpCo Directive provides no transition period beyond September 27, 2026, including for products and labels already in circulation. The suggested remedy for non-compliant stock is corrective measures at the point of sale (for example, over-stickering, covering, or supplementary information), not a sell-through grace period. At the enforcement level, the Q&A offers some comfort: national authorities will normally prioritize and sequence enforcement action according to the gravity of the infringement and the specific circumstances, and may take account of reasonable compliance efforts—expressly including for products already in the distribution chain—alongside proportionality, legal certainty, and legitimate expectations. That discretion, however, belongs solely to public authorities and offers no shelter against civil cease-and-desist claims brought by competitors and consumer associations.

What Brand Owners Should Consider Doing Now

None of this means stripping every green mark and logo from the portfolio—even at this late stage. The task is to review claims and brand portfolios systematically and to differentiate them by a structured five-stage remediation plan:

Map the relevant uses. Catalog every sign and packaging element carrying an environmental signal: brand and product names, sub-brands, slogans, house seals and certification logos, plus colors and motifs (for example, leaves, water, globes) that may read as implicit environmental claims. Cover all channels (product, packaging, point of sale, digital) and rank items by market exposure.
Classify the risk. Sort each item into prohibited, substantiation-required, or low-risk. Offset-based neutrality logos and self-awarded seals fall squarely into the first bucket; bare generic adjectives in the second; purely fanciful signs with no environmental connotation into the third.
Check substantiation. For substantiation-required items, test whether a qualifying legal basis exists, for example, an EU Ecolabel or recognized EN ISO 14024 Type I award to support generic claims. Build the substantiation file before the first warning letter arrives; under Article 12 UCPD, courts can require the trader to substantiate factual claims at short notice.
Choose the fix. Select the proportionate fix for each item:

Clarify: Add a clear, prominent, same-medium specification to convert a generic claim into a specified one (the cheapest fix where solid data exists).
Certify: Either rebuild an internal house seal into a compliant certification scheme (with published criteria, third-party monitoring and access for other traders) or secure a qualifying ecolabel to support a generic claim.
Redesign: Re-engineer the artwork or rename the product line, following the principles set out below for future trademark filings.
Over-sticker: Cover or correct non-compliant claims on existing stock as a temporary stopgap where redesign cannot reach goods already produced.
Discontinue: Completely withdraw the claim, label, or pack where no substantiation is achievable and correction is impractical.

Document the process. Record the assessment, the choices made, and the steps already taken. A contemporaneous file of proportionate, good-faith compliance efforts is precisely what the Commission’s Q&A invites enforcement authorities to credit.

Beyond the deadline

For new trademark filings, the recommended strategy is to keep the core brand strictly neutral or fanciful and attach any environmental reference through clearly defined, verifiable claims explained on the same medium. Relegating the explanation to a downstream source such as a separate website or a QR code will generally not suffice. Pairing a “green” name with a short, substantiated statement of the product’s actual environmental performance turns a vulnerable generic signal into a defensible specified one. Blanket generic statements, in turn, should be reserved for terms protected under sector-specific EU rules, which take precedence—such as “organic” under Regulation (EU) 2018/848—and whose conditions the product meets. Handled this way, the mark keeps its origin-identifying function while the sustainability message remains on solid legal ground.

Key takeaways and Outlook

No trademark immunity: Where the average consumer reads an environmental message into a trademark, it is assessed as an environmental claim.
The register does not shield use: Trademark offices will rarely refuse green marks ex ante, yet their commercial use can be enjoined, marked stock can become unsalable, and misleading use risks revocation.
No transition period: The European Commission points to corrective measures such as over-stickering or supplementary point-of-sale information, not to a sell-through grace period. While enforcement styles vary across the EU—ranging from regulatory fines by public authorities to aggressive private litigation by competitors in jurisdictions like Germany—the Commission’s strict stance means brand owners face immediate compliance pressure from day one, regardless of the local enforcement mechanism.
The defensible strategy is separation: Maintain a neutral or fanciful brand core for the register, and layer any environmental message as a specified, substantiated claim on the same medium.

The first wave of post-September disputes is likely to be fought over context: when exactly does a trademark read as a mere badge of origin, and when does it read as a claim—and where do certification-style logos end and sustainability labels begin? With the Green Claims Directive stalled, EmpCo will define the boundaries of green branding in the EU for years to come. Brand owners should therefore treat compliance with EmpCo as a trademark issue, not merely a labeling one.

Although every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of this article, readers are urged to check independently on matters of specific concern or interest. The opinions expressed in this feature are those of the author and do not purport to reflect the views of INTA or its members.