The court considers the choice of words to be misleading to consumers
The Cologne Higher Regional Court has ruled that vegan materials may not be advertised using the term "apple leather." In a ruling announced on July 4, 2025, the 6th Civil Senate prohibited an online retailer from using this term for dog collars made from an apple pomace-based material. The court considered the choice of words to be misleading to consumers, as "leather" is commonly associated with animal products. Appeals against the decision are not permitted (Section 542 of the Code of Civil Procedure).
The case stems from a lawsuit filed by an association of the leather-producing industry. The association had objected to the defendant's online advertising of its vegan dog collars as "apple leather." The material consists of residues from fruit juice production, such as apple peels and pomace, which are processed into a plastic-containing composite material.
While the Cologne Regional Court initially rejected the application for a preliminary injunction, the Higher Regional Court overturned this decision. According to the judges, the term "apple leather" gave consumers the impression that it was a genuine leather product—possibly made from animal hides tanned with apple extracts.
"The public understands leather to be a natural product produced by tanning animal hides and skins," the Higher Regional Court stated. The prefix "apple" is not clearly suitable to indicate the synthetic origin. Rather, given existing terms such as "olive leather" or "rhubarb leather," it could convey the impression of vegetable-tanned animal hides. Even the reference to the vegan nature of the material in the product description is insufficient, as this information only appears on a subsequent page.
The decision was issued in interim relief proceedings and is therefore provisional. Nevertheless, the parties can continue the dispute in the main proceedings.
