07/19/2011 03:49:00 PM EST
Green Patent Blog: Plastic Bag Makers Accuse ChicoBag of Reverse Greenwashing
Greenwashing has come to mean making false or deceptive
representations about environmentally friendly aspects of products,
services or practices.
The vast majority of greenwashing legal actions target product or
service providers touting their wares in such a way that misleads
consumers about the environmental benefits of those goods or services
by, for example, making unsubstantiated claims about better energy
efficiency or lower environmental impact.
However, in a twist that might be called reverse greenwashing, a new
lawsuit focuses on alleged false or deceptive claims about the negative
environmental impact of competitors' products.
Specifically, plastic bag makers Hilex Poly Company, Superbag, and API Enterprises accuse ChicoBag, which
markets its reusable bags as eco-friendly alternatives to single use
plastic bags, of making false, misleading and unsubstantiated claims
about the consumption, recycling, and environmental impact of plastic
According to the second amended complaint (Hilex_Complaint),
filed in federal court in Columbia, South Carolina, ChicoBag has made
several false or deceptive claims in its advertising and promotion, and
has falsely indicated that the claims are substantiated. The disputed
the statement that only one percent of plastic bags are recycled;
the statement that "somewhere between 500 billion and a trillion plastic bags are consumed worldwide each year"
the statements that "the world's largest landfill can be found
floating between Hawaii and San Francisco" and "this 'landfill' is
estimated to be twice the size of Texas" and the "landfill" is comprised
of "mostly plastic bags";
the statements that "[e]ach year hundreds of thousands of sea birds
and marine life die from ingestable [sic] plastics mistaken for food"
and that such plastics are comprised mostly of plastic bags.
The plaintiffs also allege that some of ChicoBag's assertions about
its own reusable bags are false or misleading, such as the statement
that its products are superior to plastic bags and that a reusable bag
needs to be used only eleven times to have a lower environmental impact
than using eleven disposable bags.
The complaint asserts one federal cause of action for false
advertising under the Lanham Act and another for violations of the South
Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act.
It seems likely that some of the disputed statements will be deemed permissible advertising puffery.
However, green consumers deserve accurate and substantiated
information not only in connection with the environmental benefits of
products they may want to purchase, but also the reverse - with respect
to the environmental detriment of products they may wish to avoid.
View more from Green Patent Blog.
Lexis.com subscribers can explore/search Trademark Law resources on Lexis.com or access any of these
Mathew Bender Trademark Law publications:
Non-subscribers can purchase Trademark Law
treatises/resources and Mathew Bender publications from the LexisNexis Bookstore
For more information about LexisNexis products and
solutions connect with us through our corporate