“Climate-neutral [Klimaneutral]”
摘要
The question whether advertising with environmental protection terms (here: “climate-neutral”) and labels is misleading, is – like health-related advertising – subject to strict requirements concerning the accuracy, unambiguity and clarity of the advertising claims (continuation of judgments of the Federal Supreme Court, 20 October 1988 – I ZR 219/87, BGHZ 105, 277 [juris para. 14] – Umweltengel; 20 October 1988 – I ZR 238/87, GRUR 1991, 546 [juris para. 26] = WRP 1989, 163 – Aus Altpapier; 4 October 1990 – I ZR 39/89, GRUR 1991, 550 [juris para. 13] = WRP 1991, 159 – Zaunlasur; 14 December 1995 – I ZR 213/93, GRUR 1996, 367 [juris para. 33 et seq.] = WRP 1996, 290 – Umweltfreundliches Bauen; 23 May 1996 – I ZR 76/94, GRUR 1996, 985 [juris para. 17] = WRP 1996, 1156 – PVC-frei). It follows from the increased need to inform the relevant public about the meaning and content of environmental claims that strict requirements must be made concerning the explanatory information needed to avoid misleading advertising. In the case of advertising that uses an ambiguous environmental term, these requirements will generally only be met if the advertising itself clearly and unambiguously explains which specific meaning is relevant. An explanation in the advertising itself is necessary when using the term “climate-neutral”, which includes both the avoidance of CO2 emissions and CO2 offsetting, in particular because CO2 reduction and the offsetting of CO2 emissions are not equivalent measures for achieving climate neutrality. Rather, the principle of prioritising reduction over offsetting applies.