“What my pet wears must not come from an animal,” a dog owner might demand today – and they would not be alone: vegan materials are in high demand in the pet accessories industry like many others. Manufacturers are therefore increasingly opting for alternative raw materials to appeal to environmentally conscious consumers. But not every creative term is legally defensible. Cologne Higher Regional Court has found that anyone who manufactures dog collars from fruit waste may not refer to them as “apple leather” (“Apfelleder”) (ruling of July 4, 2025, case ID 6 U 51/25).
The subject of the proceedings was a dog collar made using residues from apple juice production. The term “apple leather” was intended to create a high-quality, natural image for the material – though in fact the product contained no animal skin whatsoever. A leather processing industry association sued the manufacturer for misleading information.
Cologne Regional Court (Landgericht) initially dismissed the claim. In its reasoning, it stated that the collar’s blue color meant that it did not give the customer the impression that they were purchasing a genuine leather product and that the term “apple leather” would not lead to them drawing this conclusion either. The Court also took into account the term “artificial leather,” which it claimed would not lead to the conclusion that real leather had actually been used.
However, Cologne Higher Regional Court took a different view, finding that the term “apple leather” is not sufficiently clear and could give the consumer the impression that the product is genuine leather (i.e. animal skin) that has merely been tanned in an environmentally friendly way. According to the judges, the word “leather” is the main word here, which is supplemented and described in more detail by the addition of “apple.” The term “leather” is understood by the public to mean a natural product manufactured by tanning animal skins and hides. According to the judges, this therefore constitutes misleading conduct under competition law (Section 5 (1)(2)(1) Act against Unfair Competition (UWG)).
The Court held that, unlike the addition “artificial” cited as an example by Cologne Regional Court, the addition “apple” does not unequivocally indicate a different product characteristic. It could therefore be perceived as merely descriptive. In addition, the Court found that the dog collar’s coloring is no indication that consumers will correctly classify the material. The collar is only partially colored blue: according to the judges, this does not rule out the possibility that individual components – in particular the black fastener – could be made of genuine leather.
Irrespective of this, Cologne Regional Court’s reasoning did not convince the judges at Cologne Higher Regional Court because, as they pointed out, there are genuine leather products on the market that are also dyed. Therefore, a product’s coloring does not allow any conclusions to be drawn as to whether it is vegan or not.
This ruling is in line with existing case law on misleading material names, particularly in connection with terms such as “textile leather” (see Bamberg Higher Regional Court, NJOZ 2013, 313 ff.; Hamm Higher Regional Court, NJOZ 2013, 316 ff.). The decisions of Hanover Regional Court (judgement of September 10, 2019 – 24 O 234/19) and Celle Higher Regional Court (judgement of November 25, 2019 – 13 U 70/19) do not contradict this ruling either. Although the word combination “apple leather” was not viewed as clearly misleading in those cases, the advertising of the products repeatedly and clearly used the term “vegan” – including in the product title. In this case, however, the design of the advertising differs significantly: the reference to the vegan nature of the product is only made in an expanded section of the product description and is not immediately recognizable to the average consumer without additional action on their part – for example clicking on a small “+ symbol”. According to the judges, such hidden information is not sufficient. They found that the use of the term “apple leather” in this specific case was to be regarded as misleading against this background.
Why “olive leather” is allowed, but “apple leather” is not
The distinction is subtle, but legally relevant: terms such as “olive leather” or “rhubarb leather” refer to genuine leather that has been tanned using vegetable substances – animal skin remains the original material. The term “apple leather,” on the other hand, suggests a vegetable component, but conceals the fact that the material contains no leather at all. In its decision, Cologne Higher Regional Court emphasized that it is the first impression that counts. The “vegan” labelling is not enough to correct the original misconception; it is the memorable term characterizing the product that is decisive.
Cologne Higher Regional Court has thus provided clarity: if there is no leather in a product, it cannot say “leather” on it.
What manufacturers and retailers need to bear in mind
For companies, especially retailers and manufacturers of plant-based alternative materials, the following applies: as soon as they use terms for their products that have a specific meaning – such as “leather” – they must ensure that these products correspond to the general understanding of the term. Particular care should be taken with terms such as “apple leather”: the risk of misleading the customer is high as long as the actual nature of the material is not transparently and unambiguously indicated – ideally in the product title or in the main description. If no such indication is provided, there is a risk of receiving a warning from competition authorities. Product information that only becomes visible with additional clicks does not generally fulfil the transparency requirement. Anyone who opts for a name with advertising appeal should therefore – despite their enthusiasm for innovation – always check (or have checked) that it is also legally sound.
Picture credits: Natalia_AdobeStock.com
