Green or Grey? Navigating Risk in the Era of New Greenwashing Norms

Introduction

From the last couple of years many organizations are rushing to get trademark prefixes such as “Green”, “Eco”, “Bio”. We have already seen these types of trademarks in many companies such as Mamaearth, Biotique, etc. which gives a sense of psychological satisfaction to the consumers that they are using the natural product and the company is inclined towards nature and putting efforts to make the environment clean and sustainable. For example, Mamaearth says every order which is done on their website is linked to a tree as of early 2025 approx. 800,000 trees have been planted. 

Well, this is not the case with every company so to regulate that CCPA (Central Consumer Protection Authority) has released Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Greenwashing (2024) on October 15, 2024. According to this guidelines CCPA clearly stated that terms like eco-friendly, sustainable, etc. should be prohibited unless it is backed by accessible data. According to clause 6 of the guidelines any claim made regarding the environment must be backed by accessible and verifiable data either via QR code or URL. In addition to this Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) have issued another guidelines on baseless future plans falsely advertised according to guidelines it has put a limit on the advertisement of the businesses who promise aspirational claims/ future promises (e.g., “Absolute Zero by 2040”) unless the brand discloses its year-by-year plans. Also, in the clause 1 of the notification it is mandated that “Such absolute claims cannot be diluted by means of a disclaimer or any other clarificatory mechanism such as a QR code or website link etc.”

Many companies put all there focus on advertisement and selling their product but while registering their product for trademark they often fell in the legal trap according to Section 9(2)(a) of Trademarks Act, 1999. A trademark shall not be registered if “it is of such nature as to deceive the public or cause confusion”. In the case of GEEP FLASHLIGHT INDRUSTRIES & THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARKS,1972. In this particular case the Geep flashlight industries filed for a trademark for the word “JANTA” for torches the word implied that the product is affordable to a common man but if the product is expensive then it will be misleading(deceptive) for a layman. So, this case laid a precedent to convey that a trademark cannot be issued which a quality of a product does not possess. So similarly, this precedent also applies on the companies which promise false claims regarding sustainability.

The main issue for the companies is Section 53³ which talks about the trademark rectification. Any aggrieved person can file for the removal of trademark if it violates the Section 9 of The Trademark Act 1999³ so even if the trademark is issued it can be retracted back by a single application and it will also result in loss of goodwill of the company.

Not only this, SEBI’s ESG Mandate (Sept 2025) has also released a notification that mandated strict BRSR core (Business Responsibility and Sustainable Reporting) disclosures for the ESG (Environment, Social and Governance) regulators. A public listed company shall prove its green claims to financial regulators. If not taken seriously then the Directors and Key Managerial Personnel have to face personal liability under Companies Act,2013 along with several other consequences.

Now Internationally, the new European Union Claims Directive will also create a burden for Indian businesses from September 2026 EU new rules are approaching to tackle greenwashing. So, the businesses with Green Trademark may also face legal consequences as well as bans (if the claims are misleading). A one of the first case greenwashing is the Fossielvrij NL v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM Case) decided by District Court of Amsterdam the court ordered that KLM’s “Fly Responsibly” campaign was totally false and gave a false impression to public that flying could be sustainable. It was held that KLM ‘s “CO2ZERO” term was fallacious because reforestation cannot permanently offset flight emissions. Similarly, this case these kinds of trademarks (CO2ZERO) are deceptive under Section9(2)(a).

So, to prevent all this chaos the companies should invest their time and money in conducting Green IP Audits and not on fancy misleading advertisements. And a defensive strategy the companies should swiftly file a new distinctive wordmark that avoid the green claims so that the trademark will be valid and no unfair advantage is to be provided to the competitor. As well as a third-party verification can be done to ensure that all claims are certified by globally recognized independent auditors, and verify that the claims do not lead to burden shifting e.g. that the product is green but the packaging led to environment degradation.

Author: Yashmit Upadhyay, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at  Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.