EU: Vegan steak™? What plant-based food trademark owners should know about recent EU-law developments

As plant-based products account for a rapidly growing share of the European food market, the question of what they can be called has become far more than a matter of marketing. On 5 March 2026, the European Parliament and the Council of the EU reached a provisional agreement to restrict the use of certain meat-related names on plant-based (and cell-cultured) food products across the EU. The deal, struck in trilogue negotiations as part of a broader revision of the Common Market Organisation (CMO) Regulation, draws a new line between terms that plant-based producers may continue to use and those reserved exclusively for products derived from slaughtered animals.

What has been agreed?

Under the provisional agreement, 31 specific meat-related terms will be banned from use on plant-based and vegan product labels and marketing materials. The restricted list covers two main categories: animal-species names (such as beef, veal, pork, poultry, chicken, turkey, duck, goose, lamb, mutton, ovine and goat) and meat-cut terminology (including steak, bacon, breast, thigh, drumstick, loin, ribs, T-bone, ribeye, sirloin, tenderloin, rump, shank, shoulder, chop, wing, brisket, flank and liver).

Crucially, however, format-based product names – such as burger, sausage, nuggets and escalope – remain permitted, provided the product is clearly labelled as plant-based or vegan. This means that terms such as "veggie burger", "plant-based sausage" or "vegan nuggets" can continue to be used on packaging and in advertising.

What does it mean for trademark owners?

Beyond labelling and marketing compliance, the new naming restrictions have significant implications for trademarks.

Article 7(1)(g) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation (Regulation 2017/1001, "EUTMR") provides an absolute ground for refusal of trademarks that are "of such a nature as to deceive the public, for instance as to the nature […] of the goods or service." This provision already operates independently of any food-labelling legislation, but the new naming restrictions under the revised CMO Regulation may reinforce and extend the scope of deceptiveness objections at the EUIPO and national Trademark Offices.

The threshold for a finding of deceptiveness under this provision is the existence of "actual deceit or a sufficiently serious risk that the consumer will be deceived". The assessment is carried out by reference to the sign itself, the goods and services listed in the application, and the perception of the relevant public. Crucially, the relevant public is understood broadly: it is not limited to vegans or vegetarians but extends to the general public, who are deemed to purchase everyday food products quickly and without paying close attention. A trademark is found to be deceptive when it leads average consumers to believe that the goods possess certain characteristics – such as containing animal-derived meat – which they do not in fact possess.

This principle has already been applied in practice. In Myforest Foods Co. v EUIPO (Case T‑107/23), the EU General Court upheld the refusal to register the word mark "MYBACON" for fungi-based meat substitutes under Article 7(1)(g) EUTMR. The EUIPO and the Court found that the sign was liable to deceive consumers into thinking the products contained pork bacon, and that the prefix "MY" did not sufficiently dispel the risk of deception – unlike marks such as "BEYOND BURGER" or "IMPOSSIBLE MEAT", where additional words indicated that the goods were not derived from animals. The General Court also emphasised that a mark must be refused as deceptive even if a non-deceptive use is possible. The mere fact that some consumers might not be misled is irrelevant.

However, even if a trademark is registered, this does not mean that the trademark holder is entitled to use it if such use would not comply with the new food labelling rules, effectively rendering the trademark commercially unusable in the EU. Trademark holders may therefore need to file new trademarks that replace the restricted terms with permissible alternatives.

Current legal status: provisional, not yet final

It is important to emphasise that the trilogue agreement of 5 March 2026 is a provisional political deal, not yet final law. The compromise still awaits adoption by the Agriculture and Fisheries Council (representing Member State ministers) and a final vote in the European Parliament plenary. Once formally adopted and published in the Official Journal of the European Union, the new rules will enter into force. Producers will then benefit from a three-year transition period, during which companies may continue to sell products bearing existing packaging and trademarks and gradually adapt their labels and branding to comply with the new requirements.

While the final contours of the legislation are still to be confirmed, its direction is no longer in doubt. For plant-based food businesses, early preparation will be key – not only to ensure compliance, but to maintain clarity, consistency and consumer trust in an evolving regulatory landscape.