355 members of the EU parliament in Strasbourg voted in favour of the corresponding amendment to the law, while 247 voted against it. Manufacturers of plant-based meat alternatives – a market segment with a sales volume of around EUR 760 million in Germany – would be compelled to comprehensively rename their product ranges in this case. In addition to trademark rights, this would particularly affect packaging design, trade listings, IT systems, and all external communication.

The motion passed by the EU parliament does not (yet) have any binding legal effect as it requires approval by the Council and formal publication of the regulation before it becomes binding EU law. Whether this will actually happen is questionable, as many members of the European parliament (MEPs), including those from the EPP Group, voted against the motion. Furthermore, a general ban on naming would only be in line with EU law if it complied with the principle of proportionality. It can therefore only take effect if milder measures, such as an obligation to add factual information, clearly fail to achieve the objective of consumer protection.

In its judgment of 04 October 2024, Case C-438/23 “Protéines France et al.”, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) expressly stated that the empirical evidence available to date showed consumers were not misled by clearly labelled plant-based products. Politically, it therefore remains to be seen whether the Council and Parliament will actually adopt a far-reaching ban or agree on a compromise solution in which the culinary term (sausage, schnitzel, etc.) remains in place but must be combined with a mandatory indication of plant origin.

No member states are currently expected to go it alone on this issue. This is particularly because a similar attempt by France has already failed. The French legislature attempted to ban the aforementioned meat-typical designations, but in its ruling of 04 October 2024, Case C-438/23 “Protéines France et al.”, the ECJ declared the regulation to be contrary to EU law, as the Food Information to Consumers (FIC) Regulation (EU) 1169/2011 conclusively harmonises the naming of foods.

Article 38(1) of the FIC regulation further prohibits EU member states from creating their own naming bans as long as the regulation itself does not allow any leeway in this regard. Since no such leeway exists for meat designations, the judges ruled that the French ban violated both full harmonisation and the free movement of goods under Article 34 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The decisive factor here was that misleading information could already be avoided by a clear, unmistakable indication of plant origin (e.g. “100% plant-based”, “pea-based”); a total ban was therefore disproportionate.

As long as the European legislature does not enact any other formally adopted regulation, plant-based foods may be advertised as “steak”, “schnitzel”, or “burger” throughout the internal market, provided they clearly indicate their plant origin to the consumers concerned. This follows directly from Article 17 of the FIC regulation. This stipulates that a food product must bear its “legal name”, a “customary name”, or, failing that, a “descriptive name”. For plant-based meat alternatives, customary terminology has been established in the market and in consumer language for years. The only decisive factor is that the labelling is not misleading. In Germany, the consumer model of the informed and knowledgeable consumer applies. Misleading labelling only occurs if the consumer could assume that, based on the designation, the product is of animal origin. A clear plant-based reference to the plant origin of the product, e.g. “vegan”, “veggie”, or a similar term, prevents this risk.

If the EU legislature ultimately enacts a general ban on the use of this sort of labelling, it would take precedence over national law as a directly applicable regulation. However, as mentioned above, such a regulation would only be in conformity with EU law if it complied with the principle of proportionality. Politically, it therefore remains to be seen whether the Council and Parliament will actually adopt a far-reaching ban or agree on a compromise solution (qualifier model) in which the culinary term remains but must be combined with a mandatory indication of plant origin.

Beyond legal or political considerations, however, the EU Parliament's decision is, once again, highly likely to undermine citizens’ trust in EU institutions. At a time when real problems make it essential to work together in Europe to find solutions to important issues that could pose an existential threat to us all in economic, socio-political, and security terms, focusing on “veggie sausages” is more than likely to massively undermine the EU Parliament's acceptance among citizens.

Dr Christoph Holzbach is a partner at FPS and leads the firm’s intellectual property practice group. He advises and represents multinationals and SMEs worldwide across IP, IT, and media law, including trademarks, designs, unfair competition, patents, licensing, and litigation. He develops brand strategies, leads complex disputes, and is recognised by Best Lawyers and JUVE.

Dr Christoph Matras is an attorney at FPS focusing on intellectual property, IT, and media law – particularly trademarks, unfair competition, copyright, media and enforcement, including anti‑counterfeiting and cross‑border online marketplace measures. He advises and litigates for clients worldwide.

publications

Juve Handbuch Steuern: Benefitax leading tax firm consulting firm in the central region

Double award for Benefitax German Chartered Accountants in Frankfurt

Don't we have other problems? Thoughts on the EU veggie burger ban