24.11.2020

Responsible Marketing or Misleading Greenwashing?

Responsible. Sustainable. Environmentally friendly. Green. Carbon neutral. Ecologically safe. Low emission. Recyclable. Biodegradable. Made from renewable materials. Energy efficient.

Corporate marketing is full of these kinds of claims, which is a good thing. Companies are paying more attention to the sustainability of their businesses—particularly to their environmental impacts—and are communicating about them more openly.

The use of sustainability and environmental claims in marketing can impact consumers’ purchasing decisions and bring companies a competitive edge. This being the case, the kinds of claims being made is important.

For example, you may come across a sweater in a clothing store with a label stating not just the price, but also announcing, I am sustainable. What does it mean that a product is sustainable? A Finnish clothing brand launched a ‘100% sustainable clothing line’ in September. The line didn’t include a single piece of clothing and the webstore and store were empty. The company wanted to make the point that it is impossible to make completely sustainable clothing.

In August, a Finnish marketing magazine wrote that companies find it difficult to communicate sustainability and are afraid of being accused of greenwashing. One reason for this is a challenge of scale: companies measure their sustainability in many different ways.

There is no reason to be afraid of sustainability marketing as long as it is based on facts and takes into account the entire lifecycle of the product or service, from the procurement of raw materials to the disposal of waste.

Marketing Cannot be False or Misleading

Sustainability and environmental claims—just like any other factual claims in marketing—must be provable. Your own subjective opinion is not enough, but you have to have research or other credible data (verified by third parties, if necessary) to back up your claims.

The overall impression created by marketing cannot be misleading. For example, it would be misleading to say, ‘we have doubled the amount of recycled material’, if the original amount of recycled material in the product was negligible.

Marketing should not abuse consumers’ concern for the environment or seek to exploit consumers’ lack of environmental knowledge. Marketing should also indicate whether an environmental claim concerns the entire lifecycle of the product or just one part or production phase of it or, for example, the company’s overall environmental efficiency.

It should also be noted that environmental claims can be more than just verbal expressions. A symbol or other graphic presentation referring to an environmental feature of a product or package could also be considered an environmental claim. This being the case, companies should not add symbols of their own devising to, for example, product packaging if they could give the misleading impression that the product has an official environmental certificate.

Don’t Highlight Meaningless or Irrelevant Features

Marketing should not highlight a feature that has no meaning or relevance to the product or service in question. The meaningfulness and relevance of sustainability and environmental claims are assessed based on other products in the same group of products or services. For example, claiming that a product does not contain a particular substance would be considered misleading if no other corresponding products on the market contain the substance in question.

Any environmental claims must be relevant to the product. Claims can only concern matters that already exist or that will at least likely arise during the product’s lifecycle.

Avoid Greenwashing: Use Truthful, Up-to-Date and Relevant Environmental Claims

With green claims having become more common, the ICC’s new marketing rules published in 2019 contain more detailed rules applicable to marketing with environmental claims, for example, environmental marks, product packaging, product descriptions, as well as marketing materials and digital media containing environmental claims.

The ICC has also published guidance on frequently used environmental claims.

According to the ICC’s guidance, marketing should not make unconditional use of expressions such as ‘environmentally friendly’, ‘eco-safe’, ‘green’, ‘sustainable’, ‘climate-friendly’ or similar statements that communicate that the product or service has no negative environmental impacts or that the impacts would be positive. Using such statements always requires sound evidence. Furthermore, claims referring to sustainable development should not be used until there are ways to measure or confirm sustainable development.

To sum up, a good environmental claim is honest, truthful, relevant, up-to-date and specific and the text explaining it is clear, relevant and easy to understand.

Latest references

We successfully represented BMW in an exceptionally long dispute over whether the spare rims sold by the defendant and the hub caps included in them infringed BMW’s trademark and design rights. The Market Court found that the sign used by the defendant caused a likelihood of confusion with BMW’s trademarks. The defendant had used the sign on the hub caps and in the marketing of the hub caps and rims, leading the Market Court to find that the defendant had infringed BMW’s trademark rights. The defendant admitted to infringing BMW’s Community design but denied the related injunction claim. However, the Market Court found that there was no particular reason to refrain from issuing an injunction. The Market Court prohibited the defendant from continuing to infringe BMW’s trademarks and Community design and ordered the defendant to alter or destroy the products and marketing materials that infringed BMW’s rights. Furthermore, the Market Court ordered the defendant to pay BMW EUR 70,000 in reasonable compensation and EUR 80,000 in damages for the trademark infringements, as well as EUR 7,000 in reasonable compensation and EUR 8,000 in damages for the design right infringement. The amounts can be considered exceptionally high in Finland. Additionally, the Market Court ordered the defendant to pay a significant portion of BMW’s legal costs with interest on late payment. In its decision of 11 March 2025, the Supreme Court of Finland did not grant the defendant leave to appeal, and also decided that there was no need to seek a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union. Thus, the Market Court’s judgements (MAO:494/18 and 517/2023) are final. In addition to the main dispute, BMW demanded in a separate proceeding that one of the defendant’s trademark registrations be revoked. A total of three separate legal proceedings were conducted in the Market Court regarding the revocation. The defendant’s trademark registration was ultimately revoked.
Case published 9.5.2025
We are advising DNA Plc in brand protection and intellectual property enforcement matters globally. Our intellectual property team manages DNA’s global trademark portfolio, including registration, prosecution, opposition and enforcement. We also advise DNA in questions concerning consumer and marketing law, unfair competition, social media, domain names and cybersquatting. DNA Plc is one of Finland’s leading telecommunication companies. DNA offers connections, services and devices for homes and workplaces, contributing to the digitalisation of society. The company has approximately 3.7 million subscriptions in its fixed and mobile communications networks. In 2024, DNA’s total revenue was EUR 1,100 million, and the company employs about 1,600 people around Finland. DNA is part of Telenor Group.
Case published 7.5.2025
We are acting as legal advisor to Piippo Plc in the sale of their bale netwrap and baler twine machines, related assets, and trademarks used in Piippo’s business to Portuguese Cotesi S.A. The sale of assets will be carried out in two phases and the final completion of the transaction is expected to occur during the first quarter of 2026. Piippo Oyj’s core business is baling nets and twine and it is one of the leading suppliers in the industry globally. The company’s global distribution network covers more than 40 countries. The company’s shares are listed on the First North Growth Market Finland operated by Nasdaq Helsinki Oy. Founded in 1967, Cotesi is one of the world’s leading producers of synthetic and natural twines, nets and ropes, with operations in Europe, North America and South America and its main production plant in Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal.
Case published 17.4.2025
We successfully represented Onses Finland Oy before the Finnish Market Court in an exceptionally extensive dispute concerning alleged trademark infringement and unfair business practice. Our client, Onses Finland Oy, is a Finnish sports drink company and the owner of the sports drink brand ONSE. In the spring of 2023, the Polish beverage company OSHEE Polska Sp. z o.o. filed legal action against our client, alleging that the ONSE trademarks and product packaging infringed the OSHEE trademarks. The plaintiff’s secondary claims concerned alleged slavish imitation of the OSHEE sports drink packaging and exploitation of the reputation of the plaintiff. The plaintiff based its suit on registered trademarks as well as allegedly established and reputed figurative and three-dimensional trademarks. The Market Court rejected all of the plaintiff’s claims. The Market Court held that the marks invoked in the suit were neither established nor marks with a reputation in Finland. As regards the registered trademarks, the Market Court found that there was no likelihood of confusion between the OSHEE and ONSE trademarks. As to the secondary claims, the Market Court held that the sports drink packaging used by the plaintiff was a normal beverage bottle, the design of which was partly determined by functional factors. The Market Court also found that there were several blue sports drinks available on the market and that the plaintiff’s product was not the first blue sports drink on the market. The plaintiff failed to show that its product packaging was original or well-known to the average consumer at the time of the launch of our client’s ONSE sports drink product, and the Market Court thus rejected the claims on slavish imitation and exploitation of reputation. The Market Court ordered the plaintiff to pay all of our client’s legal costs with statutory interest.  In its decision of 28 March 2025, the Supreme Court of Finland did not grant OSHEE Polska leave to appeal. Thus, the Market Court’s judgment (MAO:280/2024) is final.
Case published 4.4.2025