”
Risk of deception in material-related advertising claims
\n\n
Anyone who advertises products in the course of business using material-related terms must ensure that the targeted circles of trade understand the statement correctly. Designations that, in external presentation, suggest a specific material composition may be impermissible under the competition-law prohibitions on misleading advertising if the product in fact does not possess the advertised material property. This applies in particular where a term links to an established material category with which consumers associate concrete expectations.
\n
Decision of the Higher Regional Court (OLG) of Cologne of 21/01/2026 (Case No. 6 U 51/25)
\n
Starting point of the dispute
\n\n
The subject matter of the proceedings was an advertisement in which a product was described using the designation “apple leather”, although according to the court’s findings the advertised item contained no leather. The court had to clarify whether the designation used could trigger a misconception among the addressed buyers regarding the material composition and whether this is relevant under competition law.
\n
Standard: the understanding of the average consumer
\n\n
The OLG Cologne based its assessment on the understanding of the targeted circles of trade. What matters is the meaning consumers attribute to an advertising statement in light of the overall impression. As a rule, material indications are understood as a reference to the material composition. If a term is used that contains the element “leather”, this can create the expectation that the product is made (at least in part) of leather.
\n
The designation “apple leather” as a misleading material indication
\n\n
According to the decision, it is not sufficient that the term is used in advertising merely as a catchy-sounding or descriptive designation if the addressed public associates it with a specific material property. If “apple leather” is used although no leather is included, this can constitute a relevant deception as to the product’s composition. The fact that the prefix “apple-” may indicate an alternative origin or processing does not, without further qualification, eliminate the expectation of “leather”.
\n
Importance of clarification and overall presentation
\n\n
For the competition-law assessment, the overall context of the presentation is decisive. Misleading advertising cannot be ruled out merely because individual information is available elsewhere if the eye-catching core message, at first glance, conveys an incorrect impression about the material. The court therefore addressed the question of whether the specific design is capable of maintaining misconceptions.
\n
Classification: Competition-law protection against deception regarding product characteristics
\n
Material composition as an essential characteristic
\n\n
Information on material composition regularly counts among the essential product characteristics. This can be relevant for purchasing decisions especially for products associated with perceptions of quality, durability, or sustainability. Against this background, material-related terms in advertising are subject to increased sensitivity with regard to the prohibition of misleading advertising.
\n
Differentiation from permissible advertising terms
\n\n
The decision illustrates that creative designations are not automatically permissible if they simultaneously assert or suggest a specific composition. As soon as a term is understood by the public as a material indication, the decisive question is whether the product has that property. Terminological proximity to well-known material categories can therefore give rise to competition-law risks if the actual composition deviates from it.
\n
Relevance for labeling and marketing in the IP and competition-law context
\n\n
The decision of the OLG Cologne underscores that the selection of product designations and the design of advertising statements can have implications not only under trademark and designation law, but also under unfair competition law. Particularly with material-related terms, the line between permissible product description and impermissible deception can be crossed if the wording arouses expectations that the goods do not meet.
\n\n
Anyone who, in the context of development, labeling, or marketing, works with material-associated terms and would like to clarify legal issues at the intersection of designations, advertising, and product communication can find further information on legal advice in IP law at MTR Legal Rechtsanwälte.
“
