Greenwashing and Trademarks: A New, Real Risk of Nullity and Cancellation

Directive (EU) 2024/825 (EmpCo) introduces a significant change regarding ¨greenwashing.¨ With the transposition deadline already past (March 2026) and its implementation scheduled to begin in September 2026, this new framework will not only affect how companies communicate their environmental messages but will also directly impact the stability and validity of trademarks.

A key issue is that the Directive adopts the broad concept of “environmental claim,” which not only includes advertising claims, but also trademarks, product names, labels, and logos when they convey the idea of sustainability. This means that a trademark examination will no longer focus solely on legitimacy of the use, but on a trademark’s ability to create an environmental perception in the mind of the consumer.

Examination practices are expected to become more strict, especially regarding signs containing terms such as “eco,” “green,” or “bio.” The most immediate and profound impact, however, will occur in the areas of nullity and cancellation.

First of all, trademarks that suggest unsubstantiated environmental benefits will become particularly vulnerable to nullity actions on the grounds of having a misleading nature (Art. 7.1.g EUTM Regulation). Given that EU law now expressly prohibits certain greenwashing practices, it will be easier to argue that a trademark conveys an objectively incorrect or unverifiable image regarding the product´s characteristics or those of the company.

Furthermore, it´s possible that invoking Article 7(1)(f) of the EUTM Regulation (public policy) as a recourse will increase as greenwashing practices become increasingly contrary to consumer protection regulation. This opens the door for broader interpretation of these absolute grounds during a post-registration phase, especially when a sign is used to convey generic or ambiguous environmental messages.

Secondly, the possibility of cancellation due to misleading use (Art. 58.1.c EUTM Regulation) may also arise in cases where a trademark, as used in the market, misleads consumers regarding the nature or qualities of the product from an environmental standpoint. This is a particularly important detail: even trademarks that were initially valid when registered may become unlawful based on how they are used in practice, particularly if they maintain or intensify “green” connotations without proper support, as required by the new regulations.

In this scenario, nullity and cancellation actions may become strategic tools for competitors, likely leading to an increase in litigation in this area. Signs that were previously considered neutral or acceptable may begin to be systematically challenged, especially in sectors where sustainability is a key marketing element.

With just a few months before its effective implementation, the Directive requires reevaluation of the trademark examination. It is no longer sufficient to pass the traditional examination; rather, any sign with environmental connotations must also withstand an increasingly demanding test of truthfulness and substantive consistency.

July 1, 2026