Sustainability increasingly shapes consumer behaviour, pushing brands to adopt “green” language and in some cases, nature‑inspired imagery, as part of their identity. But as environmental messaging proliferates, regulators are tightening scrutiny, and businesses face increased legal, commercial and reputational risk.
Authorities such as the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) no longer assess environmental claims in isolation. Instead, they take a holistic approach, examining the overall impression a brand conveys. Even where individual claims are narrow or carefully worded, selective messaging, broad language or suggestive imagery can collectively create a misleading environmental impression.
This means a sustainability claim relating to one aspect of one product may place a business’s wider environmental credentials under the spotlight. Regulators are also raising the evidential bar, increasingly expecting claims to be supported across the entire product lifecycle, from sourcing and manufacture to use and disposal.
For businesses, the implication is clear: sustainability messaging must be accurate, contextualised and supported by robust evidence. When done well, it builds trust and credibility. When done badly, it risks allegations of greenwashing, enforcement action and long‑term brand damage.
Trade marks as environmental signals
Many brands embed sustainability cues directly into their trade marks, using terms such as “eco”, “green” or “sustainable”, alongside imagery like leaves, circular arrows or earth‑toned colour palettes. While these elements can strengthen brand identity, they also influence consumer perception by implying environmental benefits.
This creates two key risks:
Regulatory risk: If a trade mark implies an environmental benefit, it may be treated as a green claim that must be capable of substantiation.
Registrability risk: Environmental descriptors can also cause difficulties during trade mark examination.
The UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) treats commonly used environmental terms, particularly “eco”, “enviro” and “green”, as inherently descriptive where they refer to environmental characteristics. When used alone or combined with other common terms, they are unlikely to function as a badge of trade origin and may be refused for lack of distinctiveness. Marks may also be refused if they suggest environmental benefits that cannot be supported by evidence.
To improve registrability and reduce risk, brands should consider pairing sustainability language with distinctive wording, stylisation or original graphic elements, and should assess substantiation early in the design process.
In Part 2, we look at recent enforcement action, certification marks, and practical steps businesses can take to communicate sustainability credibly and compliantly.
