At the heart of consumer law lies a simple idea: consumers must be able to make informed decisions in the market. Although this may seem self-evident, ensuring that information is accurate, clear, and comprehensible to consumers remains a constant challenge for regulators, practitioners, and – perhaps most of all – the industry itself.

Information provided to consumers must comply with various layers of EU law. A single product label may need to meet requirements under specific regimes such as food law, while also respecting general EU rules on unfair commercial practices, misleading and comparative advertising, and trademark law. Together, these rules seek to protect consumers from confusion and deception in the single market.

Under Article 2(2)(j) of the Food Information to Consumers Regulation (Regulation 1169/2011), trademarks are expressly included within the definition of “labelling”. This means that the trademark appearing on packaging is not an isolated element, but an integral part of the information provided to consumers. Consequently, a single packaging of product need to comply with many layers of EU norms not to mislead the average consumer.

The Bio Insect Shocker case (Case T‑86/19) illustrates this interaction clearly. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), in paragraphs 78 and 79 of the decision, held that when specific EU product-specific regulation prohibits certain expressions from appearing on the label not to confuse the consumer, the trademark with such expressions would be deceptive. Trademark cannot be used to circumvent other EU rules: if the label cannot bear a certain term or claim, the trademark cannot include it either. This ensures consistency between different EU legal frameworks and reinforces the principle that all information presented to consumers must be truthful and not misleading.

At the same time, EU trademark law can sometimes be stricter than product-specific regulations to avoid misleading the consumer. The MyBacon case (Case T‑107/23) is a good example. The CJEU upheld the decision to refuse registration of “MyBacon” as a trademark for meat substitutes. Even though the packaging could lawfully specify that the product was plant-based under EU food law, the trademark itself was considered capable of misleading average consumers into believing that the product contained meat.

This demonstrates that even when a product complies with all other applicable legal requirements, the trademark can still be refused if it gives the average consumer a false impression about the nature or composition of the product. The assessment under trademark law focuses on consumer perception at the point of purchase, recognising that the average consumer is especially non-attentive when buying everyday goods.

The consistent message across these cases is clear: trademarks, as part of labelling, must meet the same standard of truthfulness and clarity as any other information presented to consumers. Ultimately, such plethora of EU norms towards package and labelling, as well as trademark law, pursue the goal established in EU Consumer Law: ensuring that consumers are not misled, whether by words, symbols, or any type of commercial communication.