By Carol Anne Been and Kevin MacKinnon
The Patent and Trademark Office (“Trademark Office”) is waving the red flag at certain applications for trademarks that include the word “green.” As you may soon learn from office actions or other communications with trademark examiners, the Trademark Office has adopted a new prosecution policy that requires federal applications for marks that include the word “green” for selected products or services to contain a statement of “environmental friendliness” in the description of goods or services. This is a new requirement. While the Trademark Office has not yet published this policy change, trademark examiners have begun denying non-compliant applications.
The Trademark Office is basing its refusal to register selected trademarks with “green” references on Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, which allows the Trademark Office to refuse registration of a trademark that “consists of or comprises . . . deceptive . . .matter.” 15 U.S.C. § 1502(a) (emphasis added).
Under Section 2(a), a trademark is deceptive if its misrepresentation increases the marketability of its product or service by materially affecting the consumer’s purchasing decision. See, e.g., Glendale Int’l Corp. v. U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, 374 F. Supp.2d 479, 485 n.10 (E.D. Va. 2005). Studies show that a product’s environmental reputation impacts purchasing decisions made by the majority of consumers. See Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), Environmental Marketing Consumer Perception Study § 4, at 136-38 (2009), available here.
The Trademark Office’s primary concern seems to be to prevent “greenwashing” via trademarks. Typically an advertising issue, greenwashing is “the act of misleading consumers regarding environmental practices or the environmental benefits of a product or service,” according to TerraChoice. Because many consumers are willing to pay more for products that they believe are “green” or environmentally friendly, greenwashing pervades everyday advertising and marketing. See FTC Consumer Perception Study § 4, supra, at 138.
However, very few products actually contain all of the environmental benefits that consumers would reasonably expect them to have based on those products’ marketing materials. The Trademark Office’s new policy effectively brings trademarks into the mix when evaluating greenwashing concerns.
The details of the new policy have not been released, so its potential ramifications are largely unknown. Since “green” is an amorphous concept and can convey any number of meanings, the new policy could create difficulties for some trademark owners using the word “green” in their marks for other, non-environmental purposes. Trademarks using “green” to suggest money, envy, or sickness could be held up under this policy, even though businesses do not intend and consumers do not perceive an environmental message. In addition, long-established trademarks could be refused registration when they are the subject of new filings, simply because they include the word “green.” Thus, undiscriminating and broad application of the policy could cause significant cost and delay to trademark owners that use the word “green” apart from its environmental connotations. While it is unclear at this time how the Trademark Office will deal with these situations, it seems that trademark examiners should use discretion when implementing this new policy.
In 1992, in response to greenwashing concerns, the FTC issued the Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims (“Green Guides”),,16 C.F.R. § 260. While the Green Guides lack the force of law, they are meant to instruct the public regarding the proper and acceptable use of environmental claims. Id. at § 260.2. The Green Guides are intended to help businesses avoid innocently making misleading environmental claims, as sometimes the consumer’s understanding of “green” does not correspond with the company’s intended message. See FTC Press Release, supra. The Green Guides apply to “labeling, advertising, promotional materials and all other forms of marketing, whether asserted directly or by implication, through words, symbols, emblems, logos, depictions, product brand names, or through any other means, including marketing through digital or electronic means, such as the Internet or electronic mail.” 16 C.F.R. § 260.2.
The Green Guides contain numerous practical examples, and discuss deceptiveness in terms of various specific environmental marketing claims, including deceptive and non-deceptive examples of “biodegradable”, “recyclable”, and “ozone friendly”. Id. at § 260.7.
The FTC updated the Green Guides in 1996 and 1998. Since then, industrial growth and the prevalence of new terms, such as “sustainable” and “renewable,” encouraged the FTC to again revisit the Green Guides. On October 6, 2010, the FTC released its proposed updates to the Green Guides for public comment; however, the updates still are under review.
The substantiation requirement covers any materials in which environmentally themed messaging occurs. This means that the requirement is not limited to newspaper advertisements or television commercials; it includes press releases, direct mail pieces, financial disclosures, company social networking sites, etc. Also, besides being adequately substantiated when made, “green claims” must be truthful and non-deceptive, as well as not open-ended, over-stated, or ambiguous.
For businesses, one important implication of these developments is the necessity of thorough documentation. If and when challenged, businesses are responsible for proving that their environmental claims were substantiated at the time that they were made. Thus, links should be forged between the legal, marketing and science departments of businesses to ensure that the proper steps are being taken and recorded, a process which must be followed for every piece of “green” messaging that the business employs.
image: Gurmit Singh via Flickr cc (some rights reserved)
TriplePundit has published articles from over 1000 contributors. If you'd like to be a guest author, please get in touch!