Test seal, NGO logo or unlawful sustainability seal? New demarcation issues under the UWG

As of 27 September 2026, significantly stricter requirements for sustainability seals apply in Germany. Under the Act against Unfair Commercial Practices (UWG) that will then apply, the use of a sustainability seal will in future be unlawful whenever it is neither based on an appropriate certification system nor set by a state authority.

The new regulation does not only apply to classic environmental labels. Test seals, quality marks, association logos and references to cooperation with environmental or consumer organisations can also fall within the scope of application. What is decisive is not merely the designation or graphic design, but rather the impression that the mark creates with consumers.

New per se ban on non-certified sustainability seals

With the Third Act to amend the UWG, the German legislator implements the so-called EmpCo Directive(EU) 2024/825. The amending act was published in the Federal Law Gazette on 12 February 2026; the material provisions apply as of 27 September 2026.

A sustainability seal is understood to mean a voluntary public or private trust mark, quality mark or mark of quality with which a product, a process or a commercial activity is to be highlighted or promoted with reference to ecological or social characteristics. It is not necessary for the mark to be expressly designated as a 'seal'.

A sustainability seal may henceforth only be used if it

• has been set by a state authority or
• is based on a certification system that meets the statutory requirements.

Infringements are added to the so-called black list of the UWG. The use of an insufficiently secured seal is thus unlawful without further examination of the risk of misleading.

Example: A food manufacturer labels its products with a self-designed green leaf and the inscription 'Our sustainable choice'. The products are selected solely on the basis of internal company criteria. Independent monitoring does not take place. The mark should be considered a sustainability seal and would be unlawful as of 27 September 2026.

The position may be different for a state-set mark such as the EU environmental label. Its use remains possible provided that the concrete product meets the respective award criteria and the company is entitled to use it.

Are independent test seals still permissible?

Not every test seal is automatically a sustainability seal. A classic test result that provides consumers with a comprehensive assessment of product quality regularly pursues a different purpose than the targeted highlighting of ecological or social characteristics.

This is particularly clear in tests whose overall assessment includes, for example, functionality, safety, durability, ease of use or value for money alongside environmental aspects. According to the considerations in the German legislative procedure, recognised independent consumer tests should generally not be treated as sustainability seals if their primary purpose lies in comprehensive and independent consumer information.

Example: A washing machine receives an overall rating of 'good' in an independent product test. Washing performance, handling, durability, safety and energy and water consumption are assessed. The manufacturer reproduces the test result in full in compliance with the conditions of use. In this case, the comprehensive product assessment is in the foreground. The test seal should therefore generally not become a sustainability seal solely because of the inclusion of environmental criteria.

Counter-example: The manufacturer takes from the same test exclusively the good assessment of energy consumption and creates from it its own green mark with the inscription 'Environmentally tested'. This can create the impression with consumers that the product has undergone a separate sustainability certification. The mark could therefore be classified as a sustainability seal.

The law does not contain a blanket exemption for test seals. The risk of classification as a sustainability seal increases in particular if

• exclusively or predominantly environmental or social characteristics are assessed,
• the seal emphasises terms such as 'sustainable', 'climate-friendly', 'fair' or 'green' particularly,
• the test result is removed from its original context for advertising purposes or
• the presentation gives the impression of a special sustainability certification.

Further example: An online portal rates hotels exclusively on whether they change towels on request, offer regional foodstuffs and avoid single-use packaging. The hotels awarded may use a green 'Eco Hotel tested' logo. Such a mark should be considered a sustainability seal. Its permissibility thus depends on whether the assessment system meets the statutory requirements for a certification system.

Companies should therefore not only examine who a test seal comes from. Equally important are the subject matter of the test, the assessment methodology and the concrete advertising use.

When does an NGO logo become a sustainability seal?

The use of the name or logo of an environmental, consumer or non-governmental organisation also raises demarcation questions.

A mere reference to the fact that a company supports an organisation, cooperates with it or is a member of an association should generally not be classified as a sustainability seal. This is supported in particular if the communication makes it clear what the relationship consists of and that no test or certification of the advertised product has taken place.

Example: A company states on a subpage of its website: 'Since 2024 we have supported the regional reforestation project of the Waldregion e.V. association with an annual 20,000 euros.' The association's logo is shown next to the text. At the same time, it is made clear that the cooperation does not include any test or certification of the products. Such a transparent presentation should regularly not constitute a sustainability seal.

Counter-example: The same association logo is placed without explanation on the front of a product packaging next to the words 'Good for the environment'. Consumers could understand this as confirmation that the association has tested the concrete product and confirmed its environmental compatibility. The logo can thus take on the function of a sustainability seal.

The position may also be different if the presentation gives the impression to the consumers addressed that the organisation

• has tested the concrete product,
• has confirmed its ecological or social quality or
• has stood for compliance with certain sustainability standards.

Particularly risky are prominently placed NGO logos on product packaging or immediately next to environmental advertising claims. Additions such as 'in cooperation with', 'supported by' or 'partner of' do not necessarily rule out a seal effect.

Example: On a cosmetics packaging there is an animal protection logo with the addition 'Partner of'. If it remains unclear whether the partnership consists merely of a donation or whether the organisation controls the recipe and manufacture, the consumer can understand the logo as confirmation of animal protection product characteristics. The brief addition 'Partner of' is unlikely to dispel this misunderstanding in every case.

Companies should therefore clearly explain what the cooperation relates to.

A clearer wording could for example read:

'We financially support the work of [organisation]. The organisation has neither tested nor certified this product.'

Whether such a reference is sufficient also depends on its placement and legibility. Barely perceptible explanation on the back of the packaging will not always be able to correct an eye-catching impression on the front.

What requirements apply to a certification system?

A privately awarded sustainability seal remains basically possible. However, it must be based on a system that in particular provides for transparent and objective requirements.

The essential prerequisites include:

• publicly accessible conditions for the use of the seal,
• objective, verifiable and non-discriminatory criteria,
• a system that is basically open to all companies that meet the requirements,
• the development of requirements with the involvement of relevant experts and stakeholders and
• monitoring of compliance by an independent third party.

Example of a possibly adequate system: A trade association develops a publicly accessible criteria catalogue for recyclable packaging with the involvement of environmental specialists, consumer representatives and companies. Any interested company can apply for certification. A testing body independent of the association and of the participating companies checks before award and subsequently regularly whether the criteria are met.

Example of a system that is unlikely to be adequate: A retail company develops a label for 'responsibly manufactured products'. It sets the criteria itself, does not publish them in full and decides through its own purchasing department which products may bear the label. No external monitoring takes place. The mere existence of internal test lists does not make this model a legally compliant certification system.

Mere internal company approval is therefore not sufficient. The entry of a mark as a trade mark or collective mark does not by itself answer the question whether the underlying award and control system meets the new requirements.

Example: A company has its self-developed sustainability mark registered as a trade mark. However, the trade mark registration does not mean that the mark may also be used in competition law terms as a sustainability seal. Trade mark protection and compliance with fair dealing law must be assessed separately. What remains decisive in particular is whether the mark is based on a legally compliant certification system or has been set by a state authority.

Special risks with company-owned labels

Particularly critical are self-developed symbols, icons and product markings. Marks such as a stylised leaf, a green circle or a specially created 'eco' marking can be understood as a sustainability seal if, in the view of the relevant market, they confirm a special ecological quality.

This applies even if the mark merely serves internal categorisation of a range.

Example: An online mail order retailer marks certain items in its online shop with a green leaf. The symbol internally merely means that at least one of ten sustainability criteria is met. Which criteria exist and which of them is met for the concrete product remains unclear to consumers. The symbol can nevertheless convey the impression of comprehensive ecological distinction and thus be considered a sustainability seal.

Further example: A textile retailer uses a label with the designation 'Conscious Collection'. Inclusion in the collection requires only that a garment consists of 20 per cent recycled fibres. However, the design and designation may convey a further-reaching statement about the sustainability of the entire product. In addition to the permissibility of the label, the question therefore also arises of whether it is unlawfully concluded from a single environmental aspect to the entire product.

Explanatory accompanying text can reduce the risk, but does not eliminate it in every case. With eye-catching highlighted marks, a restriction must be clear, understandable and immediately perceptible.

Cooperation and sponsorship agreements should also be examined

The new legal situation does not only affect the design of advertising. Existing licence, cooperation and sponsorship agreements can also give rise to a need for adjustment.

Example: A company has contractually committed to displaying the logo of an environmental organisation on all packaging for three years. The contract does not, however, provide whether and according to what criteria the organisation controls the products. If the logo constitutes a sustainability seal from the consumer's perspective, the contractually agreed use may become unlawful under competition law as of 27 September 2026.

Companies should therefore examine whether their contracts

• determine the concrete meaning of the logo,
• determine the permissible forms of use,
• contain reliable test and control mechanisms,
• regulate information and proof obligations and
• allow short-term adjustment or termination of logo use.

What companies should now examine

Companies should record all marks with which ecological or social characteristics are communicated. The examination should not be limited to product packaging but should also include websites, online shops, apps, catalogues, display materials and social media campaigns.

For each mark the following questions in particular should be answered:

1. Does the mark convey an ecological or social quality statement?
2. Does the statement relate to a product, a process or the entire company?
3. Does the mark come from a state authority?
4. If not: is it based on a certification system that meets the statutory requirements?
5. Who controls compliance with the criteria, and is this body actually independent?
6. Can the documentation of the award and control procedure be submitted in the event of a dispute?
7. Might NGO or association logos possibly give the impression of product testing?
8. Does the concrete advertising use comply with the conditions of the seal or test provider?

Practical quick test: Would an average consumer understand the mark as mere information about a cooperation or as confirmation that the concrete product meets special ecological or social requirements? The closer the design comes to a quality confirmation, the more the mark should be examined as a precaution like a sustainability seal.

Conclusion

The UWG reform eliminates dubious sustainability labelling but at the same time creates new demarcation issues. Whether a test seal, NGO logo or cooperation reference is to be considered a sustainability seal cannot be judged solely on the basis of its designation. What is decisive are purpose, design, context and the consumer impression thereby created.

A broadly based independent product test rating will regularly be assessed differently than a pure 'eco-test' seal. A transparently explained donation reference is less risky than a prominent NGO logo next to an environmental claim on the packaging. And a registered or long-used proprietary label does not remain permissible merely because consumers are already familiar with it.

In particular, company-owned labels and prominently placed organisation logos should be examined before 27 September 2026. Companies bear not only the risk for self-developed marks. They must also ensure in the case of third-party seals that the underlying certification system meets the statutory requirements.

AVANTCORE supports companies in theimplementation of the EmpCo Directive and the UWG reform – from the legal examination of individual environmental claims, test seals and NGO logos through to the revision of entire sustainability communications