EUIPO study on sustainable branding
Trademark law is part of Intellectual Property law (IP). European Union trade marks (EUTMs) are registered before the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). The EUIPO’s 2022/2023 study, ‘The Green Advantage: IP's Role in Sustainable Branding,’ indicates that ‘green’ European Union trade marks (EUTMs) outperformed non-green trademarks in growth success. The EUIPO defines ‘green trademarks’ as marks that communicate environmentally friendly products, services, or practices.
Eurostat further frames environmental goods and services as those reducing environmental pressures or maintaining the stock of natural resources. Examples include vehicle catalysts, electric cars, and zero-energy buildings. Thus, a ‘green mark’ may be an individual, collective, or certification mark emphasizing sustainability or ecological impact. However, trademarks do still need distinctiveness in order form them to be registerable. These development raises the important legal questions: how do trademark authorities distinguish between genuine distinctiveness from descriptive environmental messaging?
Distinctiveness of ‘green’ trademarks
Under Article 7 and 42 EUTMR, trademarks that are devoid of distinctiveness or consist solely of descriptive characteristics for goods and services are not registrable. This provision plays a pivotal role in determining whether ‘green’ terms can function as a trademark.
In the 2007 case ‘GREENLINE,’ the Board of Appeal found that the term ‘greenline’ merely conveyed an ecological philosophy, thus lacking distinctiveness for i.a. chemicals, gardening tools and containers: ‘GREENLINE (…) merely conveys to the relevant consumers that the goods (…) conform to a philosophy of care for the environment. The ‘line’ of goods are ‘green’ (or ‘ecological’): hence GREENLINE’
Similarly, ‘GREEN CEMENT’ (2008) was held descriptive for building materials. In 2013, the General Court confirmed in ‘CARBON GREEN’ that, despite its paradoxical combination, the sign directly referred to recycled carbonaceous materials and reclaimed rubber, as ‘it corresponds precisely to the description of the goods which, although composed of a chemical element associated with detrimental effects on the environment, are developed from reclaimed and recycled materials’. GREENWORLD (2015) and GREEN COTTON (2023) were also not accepted for trademark registration by the EUIPO.
Conversely, in a 2008 decision on ‘GREEN’ for high-tech goods, the Board held that the ecological message was too vague, granting registrability. These decisions underline that context—specifically, the nature of the goods—determines whether environmental references are descriptive or distinctive. According to the EUIPO Guidelines, GREENSEA (2013) is an acceptable trademark for goods and services in Classes 1, 3, 5 and 42, namely cultures of microorganisms and algae, cosmetics, ingredients for use in pharmaceutical, veterinary and sanitary preparations and research of nutritional ingredients.
The prefixes ‘ECO’ and ‘BIO’
The prefixes ‘ECO’ and ‘BIO’ have become shorthand for ecological or organic products. In EUIPO, Board of Appeal and General Court decisions, it is consistently held that these elements, standing alone, lack distinctiveness.
For instance, in ‘EcoPerfect’ (2012) and ‘ecoDoor’ (2013), both signs were rejected for being directly descriptive of goods such as household appliances, as they can be made from environmentally friendly materials or from an environmentally friendly production processes. ‘ECOFLOW’ (2025) was likewise refused, as the mark would be perceived as a reference to efficient, sustainable energy flow for goods in class 9 (electricity meters, plugs, wireless chargers, electric control devices).
Similarly, in the BIO organic case (2015) it was ruled by the General court that ‘the word element “bio” … refers in general terms to the idea of respect for the environment and the use of natural substances and ecological production method’. Registration for goods in class 3 and 5 (cosmetics, pharmaceutical and hygiene products) was not granted. In ‘BIO LATTE’ (2019), Bio markt (2022) and ‘BIOREPAIR’ (2025), the use of ‘BIO’ was also found to indicate natural or organic characteristics for which registration was sought.
Notwithstanding these decisions, when a trademark is registered or used in a stylized form (for instance as part of a figurative trademark), these prefixes may contribute to the overall distinctiveness of trade marks. This way, inventive figurative combinations may overcome trademark objections, allowing environmental messages to coexist with trademark protection. The same goes for trade marks that have an acquired distinctiveness, as Article 7(3) EUTMR allows for trade mark protection if the mark itself has become distinctive in relation to the goods or services for which registration is requested as a consequence of the use which has been made of it.
Trademark protection of slogans
The protection of ‘environmentally friendly’ slogans present unique challenges. For instance, the slogan ‘SAVE OUR EARTH NOW’ (2008) was rejected for being a mere call to action, lacking any distinctive origin function as a ‘simple and straightforward appeal to take action and to contribute to the earth’s wellbeing by favouring the purchase of environment-friendly products (…) the word ‘NOW’ commonly used in marketing (…); it is a call to action’.
Similarly, ‘Sustainability through quality’ (2023, for software, scientific and technological services) and ‘The Future is Plant-Based’ (2023, for fibers, bread, vegan chocolate, effervescent powder for drinks) were both considered descriptive of the goods and services as mentioned in the respective trademark applications.
‘Zero Waste’ (2020) and ‘Back- 2-Nature’ (2023) were also found to be non-distinctive, and as be perceived by the relevant public as an expression indicating a certain lifestyle of waste prevention based on the concept ‘Zero Waste’ and as a message that with the goods, one is is returning to a past ’in which goods were made that did not harm the environment’.
Trademark protection was granted to ITS LIKE MILK BUT MADE FOR HUMANS, registered for goods in class 29, 30, 32: dairy substitutes, oat milk, non-dairy ice cream, nut/soy based beverages, etc. According to the General court (2021) this slogan ‘conveys not only the idea that the goods are akin to milk and intended for human consumption, but also the idea that milk itself is not.’ This is interesting for green trademarks as well, since the court held that ‘a non-negligible part of the relevant public, for ethical or physiological reasons, avoids consuming dairy products’ and the slogan conveys a message capable of setting off a cognitive process in the minds of this public, allowing registration as a trade mark.
Colour marks
Colour, too, plays a role in green trademark law: in the ‘Enercon-case’ (2017, concerning wind energy converters), green – more specifically: five different shades of the simple and popular primary color green, and white – was interpreted as symbolizing ecology, thus not inherently distinctive: ‘green, as the color of nature, refers to the fact that the goods at issue are ecological or environmentally friendly”
In the Essity Hygiene and Health case (2025) the General court ruled – concerning the symbol of a leaf in black and white (registration sought for paper, dispensers and paper holders) – that ‘the relevant public would understand this mark either as referring to the ecological characteristics of the products concerned or as being purely decorative or ornamental without being accompanied by any term directly expressing this message’. The General court also held this to be true for the leaf as ‘depicted in colours other than green’.
These judgments are line with consistent case law that colours per se are not normally inherently capable of distinguishing the goods and services of a particular undertaking. Obtaining protection for colours under trademark law remains challenging, and applicants must demonstrate that the colour has (acquired) distinctiveness.
Deceptive green trademarks?
Articles 7(1)(g) EUTMR prohibit deceptive marks. For instance ‘BIOsmoke’ (2012) was refused because combining ‘biological’ with ‘smoke’ was inherently misleading—smoking cannot be healthy or ecological. The judgment ‘BIO-INSECT Shocker’ (2020) raised similar issues concerning the truthfulness of eco-friendly claims. According to the General court, this trade mark, registered for biocidal preparations, disinfectants, insect repellents, leads to deceit, because ‘the word element ‘bio’ as a prefix or suffix has acquired a highly suggestive connotation, which may be perceived in different ways according to the product offered for sale, but which, in general, refers to the idea of environmental protection, the use of natural materials or even ecological manufacturing processes’. The reasoning of the court was that biocidal preparations are in principle not biological; the presence of the term ‘bio’ on the biocidal products in respect of which the contested mark is registered therefore suffices to establish a sufficiently serious risk that the consumer will be deceived.
The ‘SOLAR’ decision (2023) also illustrated how a restriction of the specification of goods and services may render a trademark application deceptive. The General court decides that a non‑deceptive use of SOLAR, referring to sola energy, would be impossible and as a result of the applicant’s restriction of the list of goods and services (‘none of the aforesaid for or relating to […] energy solutions’), the trade mark application is found to be misleading.
On the contrary, in 2025 the Board of appeal decided in the BIO Gaen case, on olive oil, that infringement of sectoral regulations (concerning in that case: the product labelling of olive oil) alone does not automatically equate to public policy violation.
These cases also demonstrate the tension between consumer protection and creative branding in environmental messaging.
Collective and certification marks
Collective and certification marks may offer alternatives for indicating environmental characteristics. In the 2019 European Court of Justice (CJEU) case ‘Der Grüne Punkt,’ the Court recognized that the sign effectively indicated participation in an environmentally sound disposal system.
More recently, in ‘bio mineralwasser’ (2021) and ‘Ohne Gentechnik’ (2023), the EUIPO and the Board of Appeal respectively examined the limits of certification marks. In the former case, it was ruled that certification marks still will have to have distinctive character as such and in the latter case it was decided that even when goods contain trace genetically modified elements, the certification mark cannot fulfil its distinguishing function but in stead would have to be considered deceptive.
Trade mark infringement test (likelihood of confusion)
These is also case-law on infringement on green trade marks. From this, it follows that descriptive or weak elements like ‘green,’ ‘eco,’ or ‘bio’ often reduce the possibilities of the likelihood of confusion between identical or similar trade marks. These elements, as generic expression for eco-friendly or organic products, in principle do not play a role in examining likelihood of confusion.
However, recently in four cases before the General court in ‘ECOVER / ECOVIE’ (2025) it was decided that even when prefixes are descriptive, they must be factored into the overall similarity analysis. The General court crucially decided that, regarding the ECOVER trademark registered for cleaning preparations, the distinctive character of that mark should be considered to be average and regarding the word elements these are to be considered to be ‘in principle, more distinctive’ than the figurative elements. Regarding the prefix ‘ECO’, the General court decided that this ‘cannot be regarded as negligible in the overall impression [and] despite the fact that the prefix ‘eco’ of the signs at issue is descriptive, it must nevertheless be taken into account in assessing the visual, phonetic and conceptual similarity of those signs’. Moreover, for the purposes of assessing the likelihood of confusion, the court decided it has take into account the average level of attention of the general public. And in addition, the signs at issue, taken as a whole, have an average degree of visual and phonetic similarity. It has also been found that the inherent distinctive character of the earlier mark had to be regarded as average and not as weak.
Future outlook for green trademarks
The number of green trademark applications in the European Union will likely continue to increase. However, monopolizing generic sustainability-related expressions—such as the words ‘green’, ‘eco’, or ‘bio’—remains virtually impossible. There may still be room for exceptions, particularly for registering figurative trademarks, for certain classifications and for distinctive slogans. In trademark infringement cases, thus far there is a nuanced assessment made by courts regarding the likelihood of confusion-infringement test.
Trademark offices and courts may also increasingly balance the protection of commercial identifiers against the public interest in keeping ecological terminology free whilst combatting deceptive trade marks. As the EU’s ‘Green Claims’ initiatives continue to evolve, this may also ask for a more contextual approach. Ultimately, the future of green trademarks will also depend on a balancing act. Alignment between environmental communication and trademark law will also become more critical—recognizing both genuine distinctiveness and the risks of greenwashing.
