Vegan
Apple leather
misleading.
Vegan
Apple leather
misleading.
from
More and more people are interested in vegan alternatives. However, caution is required when describing vegan alternatives, as a recent case before the Higher Regional Court of Cologne shows.
Vegan apple leather
A company that sells dog accessories online offered blue dog collars and dog leads made from apple leather as a vegan alternative. This was an artificial product made with the addition of pomace and peel residues from the fruit juice and compote industry. If you clicked on a + symbol in the product description section, the following information was also displayed: “Material: Hexa coated with PVC/TPU”.
An association representing the interests of the leather-producing industry saw this as misleading consumers. The association demanded that the company issue a cease-and-desist declaration. The reason for this was that the term “apple leather” gave the impression that the products were made of leather with the typical properties of this material. The association criticized the fact that the vegan composition of the material was only mentioned in the product description and could therefore easily be overlooked.
The Cologne Regional Court initially rejected the association’s application. The court’s legal opinion was that the advertising of the product was not misleading in the overall context, as a vegan substitute product was clearly being sold. The color of the collar, namely blue, as well as the term “apple leather” itself encourage the consumer to seek further information. The indication “vegan” in the product description has an informative effect.
OLG Cologne: Apple leather is misleading
In its ruling of July 4, 2025 – Ref. 6 U 51/25, the Cologne Higher Regional Court took a different view and ruled in favor of the association.
The Cologne higher regional court judges came to the conclusion that the term “apple leather” for a plastic dog collar is misleading and therefore anti-competitive . The term suggests that the product is made entirely or partially of genuine leather. This misleads consumers about the essential characteristics of the product.
The term “leather” is understood to mean a natural product that is produced by tanning animal hides and skins. The mere addition of “apple” is not sufficient to clearly indicate an alternative. The opposite is the case: road users are familiar with a large number of word combinations such as “suede” or “nubuck leather” and assume that it is a natural product. The court also pointed out that there are already vegetable-tanned types of leather such as “olive leather” or “rhubarb leather” and that a shoe supplier had already used a tanning process with apple peel and pomace for genuine leather in 2009. This could lead to the misperception that this is genuine leather, which is given a special property by the addition of “apple”.
The reference to the vegan composition in the product description does not change this. This is because it can only be found by clicking on a symbol.
This notice is not part of the advertising message and can easily be overlooked by the average attentive consumer, especially in the case of products that are not expensive
Conclusion
The ruling makes it clear that caution is required with substitute products that use established terms, otherwise there is a risk of trouble under competition law. Ambiguous or unclear terms can be misleading, especially if clarifying information is not clearly visible near the claim. Companies should therefore ensure that their product names are transparent and clearly meet consumer expectations in order to avoid cease and desist letters under competition law.
We are happy to
advise you about
Competition law!
