3.5.2023

Green Claims Directive calls for verified and specified environmental claims in B2C commercial practices

The European Commission adopted a proposal for a Green Claims Directive on 22 March 2023. This completely new directive is intended to act as special legislation concerning environmental claims. The proposal applies to B2C commercial practices and concerns explicit environmental claims made in a textual form or contained in an environmental label that relate to a product or the trader itself. A claim that a packaging is made using recycled plastic, for example, is an environmental claim. 

In addition to proposing a new Green Claims Directive, the Commission has also proposed amending certain other directives, such as the Directive 2005/29 concerning unfair B2C commercial practices. Through the proposed amendments, the Commission would ban generic environmental claims, such as ‘green’, ‘environmentally friendly’ and ‘ecological’, if a company cannot substantiate them with recognised excellent environmental performance. Directive 2005/29 is intended to act as general legislation that applies to environmental claims, whereas the Green Claims Directive would apply to explicit environmental claims and the substantiating, verifying and communicating thereof.

Substantiation and communication requirements specified and increased

Pursuant to the proposed directive, a maker of environmental claims must carry out an assessment to substantiate such claims. The assessment must include certain components. For example, the company must specify whether the environmental claim is related to the product as a whole or only a part thereof. The company must also substantiate the claim by supporting it with widely recognised scientific evidence. Furthermore, the company must demonstrate that the environmental claim does not concern a regulatory requirement that the product must fulfil in any case.

What’s more, the proposed directive lays down requirements on how environmental claims must be communicated. When making a claim that concerns the future, the company would have to include a time-bound commitment for improvements inside its own operations and value chains. The proposed directive also lays down disclosure obligations, according to which the company would have to communicate to the consumer how the improvements that are subject to the environmental claim are achieved.

Companies that offset their emissions would have to provide consumers with more detailed information on the offsetting, such as information on the nature of the offsets and whether these relate to emissions reductions or removals.

Third-party verification before using environmental claims in commercial communication

The proposed directive states that an independent third party, i.e. a conformity assessment body, must verify the substantiation and communication of an environmental claim. The current task of conformity assessment bodies is to assess the conformity of various devices, for example, so this would mean a major change. It should also be noted that the environmental claim must be verified by the third party before the claim is used in commercial communication.

Another major aspect of the proposed directive is that the research data used for assessing the environmental claim should be reviewed and updated whenever the circumstances so require, in any case within five years from when the data was made public. The updated claims are subject to assessment by the conformity assessment bodies as well.

Financial and other consequences for making unfounded environmental claims

Pursuant to the proposed directive, Member States would be required to lay down effective and proportionate penalties for infringing the directive’s provisions. These penalties could take the form of fines imposed by a supervisory authority. The proposed fines would likely be significant as their goal is to prevent any economic benefits derived from making unfounded environmental claims. Under the proposed directive, a company could also be excluded from access to public funding for up to 12 months as penalty for making environmental claims that infringe on the proposed directive. The proposal would also make it possible to confiscate any revenues gained from products that are the subject of infringing claims.

Under the proposed directive, non-governmental organisations, among others, would have the right to submit complaints concerning infringing claims. Non-governmental organisations with an interest in the environmental marketing of companies are likely to make active use of this opportunity.

Recognise environmental claims and substantiate them with evidence

While the contents of the directive proposals might still change and the national implementation of the directives will take some time, companies should already take action. An important first step is that everyone in the organisation is made aware of what constitutes an environmental claim in marketing or company communications. Companies should also assess how consumers are likely to understand their environmental claims and whether these claims are sufficiently substantiated. It is worth noting that current legislation already requires that companies are able to prove an environmental claim when it is made.

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 ja 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