Ban On The Use Of Meat Names For Plant-based Alternatives

The European Parliament, the European Council and the EU member states recently reached an agreement on the question of whether a meat name can be used for plant-based (veg) products marketed as a substitute for meat. Olga van Leeuwen describes the rationale and likely benefits of the decision. 

The European Parliament, the European Council and the EU member states recently voted to accept a proposal banning the use of meat names for plant-based (veg) alternatives with the goal of bringing more clarity to consumers and helping prevent customers from being misled. 

Article 7 of the EU Trademark Regulation (EUTMR) stipulates that trademarks should not be registered if they are likely to mislead the public regarding the nature, quality, or geographical origin of the goods or services. 

You may wonder whether the way in which meat substitute products have been marketed so far has really caused uncertainty among consumers. Time will tell whether this ban will really contribute to (added) clarity for consumers or whether it may, in fact, sew confusion. 

What is banned and what is not 

The use of meat names and specific meat terms for meat substitutes will be prohibited. 

In concrete terms, this means that terms referring specifically to animals or parts of animals, such as chicken, beef, bacon, steak, breast, leg or wing, may no longer be used for vegetarian products. These terms are thus reserved for real meat. Such indications must be removed from the packaging of plant-based meat substitutes. 

The use of generic words that refer to a type of meat product, such as 'burger' or 'sausage', is still allowed to describe vegetarian products. 

In the future, a meat substitute product can therefore no longer be offered as 'vegetarian chicken pieces'. If you want to let the public know that you are selling a meat substitute burger, then 'veggie burger' would not be a problem. 

Consequences for trademark owners 

The present decree may result in a legally protected trademark no longer being allowed to be used on a product. This is the case when brands for vegetarian products contain meat names or refer to animals or parts of animals. 

Suppliers of meat substitutes will need to look for alternatives.

In addition to finding alternatives and adjusting packaging, the loss of existing brand awareness is an additional disadvantage for many producers of meat substitutes. Putting a new brand on the market and creating brand awareness for it takes considerable effort. 

Practical steps 

Companies will be given several years to adapt to this decision. For providers of meat substitutes, the time can be used to investigate alternatives and have them assessed for their registrability. 

By choosing a distinctive trademark, an exclusive right to that name can be established by registration. There is a tension here with the use of a descriptive designation that is attractive from a marketing point of view. The preference for a descriptive and referring term is precisely the origin of the discussion about the use of names that will be banned in the near future. 

After all, the designation ‘vegetarian chicken pieces’ makes it clear which non-vegetable product that variant is intended to replace. This is easy for consumers because they are immediately guided on the suitable use of the product in recipes by the indications on the packaging.

The argument that there would be deception by using the wording ‘vegetarian chicken pieces’ seems subjective. Precisely because of the mention of vegetarian and the basic knowledge that meat is not vegetarian, the argument of possible deception is somewhat strong.

When choosing an alternative name and allowing a somewhat descriptive designation to prevail, there is a lurking restriction that this name can easily be used by others and can therefore no longer be protected. The legal name for this is genericism. This can also occur with distinctive names, such as Sellotape, Thermos or Aspirin. Each one of these designations is used inappropriately for variants that do not originate from the original trademark owner.