Environmental Claims and Cleantech IP Checklist: Substantiation, Certification Marks, Patent Strategy, Carbon Credit Rights, and Supply Chain Evidence

By Casey Scott McKay · 2025-08-15

This checklist runs an environmental claims and cleantech IP position from the live estate inwards, because the gap between what a company has published and what anyone can substantiate is always larger than the marketing team believes. Phase one builds the claim register by walking the website, the packaging, and a year of social output rather than by asking. Phase two applies the qualification rule that decides most cases and the specific attribute rules that decide the rest. The middle phases cover substantiation files, certification mark licensing from both sides, the chain-of-custody accounting that determines which sentence a sustainable input supports, and carbon credit contract terms. The closing phases handle patent strategy in a standardising field, process trade secrets, brand clearance in a crowded descriptive vocabulary, international divergence, and the reconciliation between consumer and investor communications.

IP and Technology > General IP | Checklist | Published 15 August 2025 - Updated 1 April 2026 | Casey Scott McKay - marksy.us

Summary. This checklist runs an environmental claims and cleantech IP position from the live estate inwards, because the gap between what a company has published and what anyone can substantiate is always larger than the marketing team believes. Phase one builds the claim register by walking the website, the packaging, and a year of social output rather than by asking. Phase two applies the qualification rule that decides most cases and the specific attribute rules that decide the rest. The middle phases cover substantiation files, certification mark licensing from both sides, the chain-of-custody accounting that determines which sentence a sustainable input supports, and carbon credit contract terms. The closing phases handle patent strategy in a standardising field, process trade secrets, brand clearance in a crowded descriptive vocabulary, international divergence, and the reconciliation between consumer and investor communications.

Keywords: environmental claims checklist · claim register · live estate audit · qualification rule · specific attribute claims · substantiation file · comparator disclosure · certification mark licence review · non-discriminatory certification · chain of custody accounting · mass balance disclosure · carbon credit contract terms · retirement records · supplier evidence clauses · regulated category screening · technology name clearance · accelerated examination · standards essential exposure · process trade secrets · investor disclosure alignment

How to use this checklist

| Field | Detail | |---|---| | Who runs it | Marketing counsel with marketing, procurement, sustainability, investor relations, and patent counsel | | When | Before a campaign; on acquisition of a business; annually across the live estate | | Time required | Four to six weeks for a first pass including the estate walk | | Gates | Register built from the live estate; substantiation held before publication; accounting matched to the sentence | | Output | A claim register with expiry dates, a substantiation file, and a market-by-market clearance position | | Companion documents | Advising a Cleantech or Energy Business and Selling Green |

The matter. A materials company sells a packaging product it markets as "sustainable" and "made from ocean plastic", with a chasing-arrows symbol on the pack and a claim of carbon neutrality across its operations. The recycled input is purchased under a mass balance certificate. The ocean plastic is collected within thirty miles of a coastline. The neutrality claim rests on forestry offsets bought as a portfolio with unspecified vintages. A competitor has written complaining. The website carries a comparative efficiency claim with no stated comparator. Marketing has approved fourteen social posts in the last quarter that legal has never seen. The investor deck describes the offset portfolio as "subject to quality uncertainty".

Phase 1. Build the register from the live estate

[ ] Walk the estate rather than asking for a list. Website, packaging, point of sale, sales decks, tender responses, trade show materials, and the last year of social output. Why. The gap between what is published and what anyone knew about is the starting risk position. Trap. A register assembled from marketing's approved-campaign records, which omits exactly the claims that cause trouble.
[ ] Record one row per claim. Exact wording, location, evidence relied on, reviewer, approval date, expiry date. Why. Every later step is a query against this table. Trap. Recording the campaign rather than the sentence.
[ ] Include investor and reporting statements in the same register. Why. Consistency between consumer and investor communications is now an enforcement theme in its own right. Trap. Two registers maintained by two functions.
[ ] Add a market column. Why. A claim lawful in one jurisdiction is prohibited in another, and the artwork decision depends on the answer. Trap. A single global pack carrying the strongest claim available anywhere.
[ ] [Gate] Nothing new is published until it has a register row with evidence attached. Why. It is the only control that works. Trap. An exception for social media, which is where most unreviewed claims appear.

Phase 2. Apply the qualification rule

[ ] Identify every unqualified general claim. "Eco-friendly", "green", "environmentally safe", "sustainable". Why. The Green Guides treat these as conveying far-reaching life-cycle benefits, which almost nothing has. Trap. Treating "sustainable" as softer than "eco-friendly". It is not.
[ ] Qualify in the same place and prominence, or delete. Why. A qualifier on a landing page does not qualify a claim on a carton. Trap. Qualification by QR code.
[ ] Test "recyclable" against available infrastructure. Why. The claim is about facilities available to a substantial majority of consumers where the product is sold, and several states now regulate the symbol and wording prescriptively. Trap. A chasing-arrows symbol applied because the polymer is technically recyclable.
[ ] Test "compostable" against the whole item. Label, adhesive, closure, and the availability of a facility consumers can reach. Why. Partial compostability is not compostability. Trap. An industrial-only claim presented without qualification.
[ ] Delete unqualified "degradable" and "biodegradable" claims for landfilled products. Why. The requirement is complete decomposition within a short period after customary disposal. Trap. Laboratory degradation data presented as substantiation for a consumer claim.
[ ] Check "free of" claims for genuine absence and for the replacement. Why. Absence plus an equally harmful substitute fails. Trap. Reformulation to remove a named substance without assessing what replaced it.
[ ] Separate reduction claims from offset claims. Why. Consumers and regulators treat them as different representations, and the second carries far more risk. Trap. "Carbon neutral" with the mechanism undisclosed.
[ ] Screen for regulated categories before drafting. Energy labelling at 16 C.F.R. § 305, organic claims under the Organic Foods Production Act and 7 C.F.R. § 205, pesticidal claims. Why. In a regulated category the question is what the regime permits, not what can be substantiated. Trap. Substantiating a claim the regime forbids.

Phase 3. Build the substantiation file

[ ] Confirm the evidence predates the claim. Why. Post-hoc substantiation is a defence built after the fact and reads as one. Trap. A file assembled in response to the competitor's letter.
[ ] Match evidence scope to claim scope. Input, product, company. Why. A study of one does not support a claim about another. Trap. A supplier's input certificate offered as substantiation for a product-level claim.
[ ] State the comparator for every comparative claim. Why. "Fifty per cent less" is an incomplete sentence, and each candidate comparator requires different evidence. Trap. A comparator disclosed only in a footnote on a different page.
[ ] Record life cycle assessment boundaries. Why. An assessment stopping at the factory gate cannot support a whole-life claim. Trap. A cradle-to-gate study cited for a cradle-to-grave claim.
[ ] Avoid establishment language unless the tests establish the claim. Why. Time Warner Cable v. DIRECTV and Castrol v. Pennzoil let a challenger win by attacking the tests alone. Trap. "Studies show" added by a copywriter.
[ ] Do not rely on puffery. Why. Pizza Hut v. Papa John's International protects vague superiority, and most environmental claims contain a measurable component. Trap. A puffery memo written after the claim was published.
[ ] Note that regulatory compliance is not a defence to a competitor. Why. POM Wonderful v. Coca-Cola. Trap. Treating label approval as clearance.
[ ] [Gate] Every live claim has a substantiation file or is modified within thirty days. Why. Leaving an unsubstantiated claim live while evidence is gathered is the worst available position. Trap. A remediation plan with no deadline.

Phase 4. Match the accounting to the sentence

[ ] Identify which chain-of-custody system applies to each input. Physical segregation, mass balance, or book and claim. Why. Each supports a different sentence. Trap. Assuming a certificate means the material is in the product.
[ ] Disclose the system where it is not segregation. Why. "Made with certified material using a mass balance approach" is defensible; the same words without the qualifier are not. Trap. Mass balance treated as an internal accounting detail.
[ ] Reconcile input and output volumes. Why. The gap between what is certified and what is delivered is the recurring problem. Trap. Accepting certificates without reconciliation.
[ ] Distinguish "ocean plastic" from "ocean-bound plastic". Why. One describes material recovered from the sea; the other describes material collected within a defined distance of a coastline. Trap. Presenting the second as the first, which is the classic failure in this category.
[ ] Contract for evidence, not assurance. Test data, certification records, chain-of-custody documentation. Why. The advertiser bears the burden whatever the supplier said. Trap. A warranty that the material "meets the description".
[ ] Require notice of feedstock, process, or sub-supplier change. Why. A supplier change invalidates a published claim silently. Trap. Change control that covers specification but not provenance.
[ ] Size the supplier indemnity to the real exposure. Why. A failed input claim produces a regulator, a competitor, and a class action at once. Trap. An indemnity capped at the price of the goods.

Phase 5. Review certification mark positions

[ ] As a licensee, read the standard and the audit regime, not the marketing. Why. Criteria, sampling, and corrective action determine what compliance costs. Trap. Diligence performed on the label's reputation rather than its rules.
[ ] Establish how the standard is revised and whether a revision can render an existing product non-compliant with no transition. Why. The licensee does not control the body that sets its costs. Trap. A licence with no notice period for standard changes.
[ ] Check the licence scope precisely. Products, markets, on-pack or advertising, product-level or corporate-level. Why. Overreach is the most common breach. Trap. Corporate-level use of a product-level certification.
[ ] Confirm territorial scope against distribution. Why. A label licensed for one region used on packaging distributed more widely is both a breach and an unsupported claim. Trap. A single global pack.
[ ] Assess reputational dependency. Why. Eco-labels have collapsed, and a business whose entire positioning rests on one should be able to substantiate the underlying claim independently. Trap. No fallback position.
[ ] As an owner, accept the control obligations. Why. 15 U.S.C. § 1054 requires legitimate control and prohibits the owner producing the goods; 15 U.S.C. § 1064(5) makes failure to control, self-production, non-certification use, and discriminatory refusal grounds for cancellation. Trap. A standard drafted to suit its founders.
[ ] Certify everyone who qualifies and enforce consistently. Why. Idaho Potato Commission v. G&T Terminal Packaging shows enforcement works, and selective enforcement undermines validity. Trap. Using certification as a competitive gate.

Phase 6. Review the carbon position

[ ] List credits held, retired, and committed, with project, methodology, registry, and vintage. Why. A neutrality claim rests on retirement, and the retirement record is the substantiation. Trap. A portfolio purchase with unspecified vintages, which delivers the seller's cheapest inventory.
[ ] Check corresponding adjustment. Why. Whether the host jurisdiction authorised the transfer and adjusted its accounts determines whether the credit supports the claim. Trap. Assuming issuance implies transferability for the intended use.
[ ] Review reversal and buffer arrangements. Why. Storage credits reverse through fire, harvest, disease, and land-use change. Trap. A contract silent on what happens when the buffer is insufficient or the project is delisted.
[ ] Allocate methodology invalidation risk. Why. Registries revise and retire methodologies, and credits under a discredited one may be unusable. Trap. Risk left with the buyer by default.
[ ] Diligence the projects, not just the paper. Additionality assessment, community consent where land is involved, compliance history. Why. These are what surface in a challenge to the marketing claim. Trap. Diligence limited to registry status.
[ ] Prepare for disclosure obligations. Why. Statutes requiring publication of projects, methodologies, and the basis for neutrality assertions convert a marketing choice into a documented public position. Trap. A neutrality claim the company would not publish the basis for.
[ ] Assess the credit and the claim together, with one team. Why. The transaction is a contract dispute at worst; the claim is a triple exposure. Trap. Procurement buying credits and marketing writing the claim.

Phase 7. Technology, patents, and secrecy

[ ] Screen for accelerated examination eligibility. Why. Grant timing frequently drives funding and procurement in this sector. Trap. Standard prosecution on a technology whose commercial window is short.
[ ] Run the analytical test before choosing patent or secrecy for any process. Why. Recovery and conversion processes are frequently unrecoverable from the output, and a patent discloses them to every competitor in eighteen months. Trap. A default preference for filing.
[ ] Assess standards exposure by component. Why. Charging and grid interfaces are consolidating, and a filing that reads on a standard becomes declared-essential with obligations attached. Trap. A portfolio strategy that ignores the standards calendar.
[ ] Draft software claims to physical effect. Why. Grid and control claims tied to concrete actuation fare better on eligibility. Trap. Specification language written for a software product.
[ ] Ask how infringement would be proved at drafting. Why. An unobservable internal algorithm is expensive decoration. Trap. Detectability treated as a litigation problem.
[ ] State the currency limitation in every clearance opinion. Why. Applications publish eighteen months after filing, so the visible landscape is a year and a half old. Trap. An opinion presented as current.
[ ] Test the trade secret programme against 18 U.S.C. § 1839. Why. Reasonable measures are an element of any Defend Trade Secrets Act claim. Trap. A policy with no access controls.
[ ] Include the 18 U.S.C. § 1833 whistleblower notice and extend confidentiality to engineering and construction contractors. Why. Omission forfeits exemplary damages, and contractors see the plant and work for competitors afterwards. Trap. Confidentiality reaching employees only.

Phase 8. Brand and naming

[ ] Assume the descriptive vocabulary is unavailable. Why. Marks built on "eco", "green", "clean", "carbon", "solar", or "renewable" face crowded fields and descriptiveness refusals under 15 U.S.C. § 1052. Trap. A naming brief that asks for a name communicating environmental benefit.
[ ] Put distinctiveness in a coined element and meaning in a changeable tagline. Why. The tagline can be revised without abandoning rights. Trap. Enforceable rights invested in the descriptive half.
[ ] Clear and file technology names. Chemistries, processes, platform designations. Why. They acquire recognition in industrial markets and are almost never filed. Trap. Treating them as engineering designations.
[ ] Screen for deceptive misdescriptiveness. Why. Acquired distinctiveness cannot cure it, and it catches marks adopted before the product's positioning changed. Trap. Retaining a mark asserting an attribute the reformulated product lacks.
[ ] Keep environmental assertions out of the marks themselves. Why. A registration whose mark makes a claim ties the registration to the claim's substantiation. Trap. A house mark that is itself an environmental representation.
[ ] Clear internationally from the outset. Why. Cleantech markets are global immediately and the descriptive terms are equally crowded abroad. Trap. Domestic clearance for a product with export intent.

Phase 9. Endorsements and third-party voices

[ ] Disclose material connections where the endorsement appears. Why. 16 C.F.R. § 255 requires clear and conspicuous disclosure at the point of the endorsement. Trap. Disclosure in a profile biography.
[ ] Support expert endorsements with an actual evaluation using the expertise claimed. Why. The advertiser must be able to show the expert examined what an expert would examine. Trap. A scientist's endorsement based on a marketing briefing.
[ ] Hold substantiation for what a testimonial conveys. Why. Evidence that the consumer said it is not evidence that it is true. Trap. Testimonials used to make claims the company would not make itself.
[ ] Review non-profit partnership visuals as carefully as the contract. Why. A logo plus a donation, presented in the visual language of certification, conveys endorsement of environmental performance. Trap. A partnership agreement that disclaims endorsement while the packaging asserts it.
[ ] Disclose proprietary methodology behind any sustainability score. Why. A score the advertiser designed, presented as independent, is deceptive whatever the arithmetic shows. Trap. An internally derived rating displayed as a badge.
[ ] Extend the disclosure policy to employees. Why. Staff posting about company environmental performance are endorsers with an obvious material connection. Trap. A policy covering paid influencers only.

Phase 10. Reconcile the audiences and close the loop

[ ] Compare every consumer claim against the corresponding investor statement. Why. Describing offsets as of uncertain quality to investors while claiming neutrality to consumers creates the plaintiff's exhibit. Trap. Two functions drafting to different standards of proof.
[ ] Record which reporting framework definition supports which public statement. Why. Frameworks define the same metric differently, and inconsistency looks like manipulation. Trap. Metrics quoted without their definitions.
[ ] Bring supply chain disclosure obligations into the same review. Why. Responsible-sourcing marketing invites scrutiny of the diligence behind it. Trap. Compliance and marketing operating on separate evidence.
[ ] Set expiry dates and honour them. Why. Evidence ages with the supply chain, and nobody notices without a forcing mechanism. Trap. A register with no dates.
[ ] Walk the live estate annually and compare with the register. Why. The gap is the actual risk position. Trap. Auditing the register against itself.
[ ] Report to the board alongside the patent estate. Claims live, claims expiring, substantiation coverage, certification audit status, credits and the claims they support. Why. Boards fund what is measured. Trap. Reporting the technology estate and calling it the IP report.

Phase 11. Working the example matter

[ ] Delete "sustainable" from the pack. Why. It is an unqualified general benefit claim with nothing behind it, and every defensible thing it was meant to convey can be said specifically. Trap. Replacing it with "eco-conscious", which is the same claim in different clothing.
[ ] Fix the ocean plastic claim before anything else. Why. Material collected thirty miles inland is ocean-bound plastic, not ocean plastic, and the difference is the difference between a defensible claim and a literally false one. A competitor has already written. Trap. Arguing about the definitional boundary rather than changing four words.
[ ] Assess the chasing-arrows symbol against state statutes and infrastructure. Why. Several states now regulate the symbol prescriptively, and the underlying test is whether recycling is available to a substantial majority of consumers where the product is sold. Trap. Retaining the symbol because the polymer is technically recyclable.
[ ] Disclose the mass balance accounting. Why. A mass balance certificate supports a claim that a proportion of input was certified; it does not support a claim about the material in this pack. Adding the qualifier converts an indefensible sentence into a defensible one. Trap. Treating the accounting method as commercially confidential.
[ ] Re-examine the neutrality claim and the forestry portfolio. Why. Unspecified vintages purchased as a portfolio is the fact pattern most likely to contain credits of contested quality, and the claim rests entirely on them. Establish vintage, methodology, corresponding adjustment, and retirement for every credit relied on. Trap. Continuing to publish the claim while the review runs.
[ ] Reconcile the investor deck immediately. Why. A deck describing the offset portfolio as "subject to quality uncertainty" alongside a consumer claim of neutrality is the single most damaging document in the matter, and it will be produced. Trap. Amending the deck rather than the claim, which is worse.
[ ] Supply the missing comparator on the efficiency claim or remove it. Why. "More efficient" without a comparator is incomplete and, where a competitor is the implied referent, exposed under 15 U.S.C. § 1125. Trap. Adding a comparator retrospectively chosen to fit the data.
[ ] Bring the fourteen unreviewed social posts into the register and assess each. Why. These are the claims most likely to be screenshotted in a complaint, and they are the ones nobody has read. Trap. Deleting them without preserving them, which is a spoliation problem on top of an advertising one.
[ ] Answer the competitor's letter after the review, not before. Why. A response drafted before the estate is understood commits the company to positions it will have to abandon. Trap. A holding response that defends the claims by reflex.
[ ] [Gate] Nothing further is published until the register exists and the five claims above are resolved. Why. Each additional unreviewed claim compounds the exposure and undermines any later argument that the company acted promptly. Trap. Allowing a campaign already booked to run.

Phase 12. Responding to a challenge

[ ] Produce the substantiation that existed before publication, and nothing else. Why. Reconstructed evidence is identifiable and damaging in every channel. Trap. Assembling a stronger file after the letter arrives and presenting it as contemporaneous.
[ ] Assess the claim honestly within a week. Why. Most challenged environmental claims are indefensible unqualified and entirely defensible qualified, and the cheapest resolution is usually a modification. Trap. Reflex defence of a claim marketing has already conceded internally.
[ ] Decide early whether to modify. Why. A claim corrected within weeks reads very differently from one defended for two years and then withdrawn. Trap. Treating modification as an admission, when delay is the more damaging narrative.
[ ] Sweep the estate for the same claim elsewhere. Why. A challenge to a carton is followed by review of the website, social output, and investor materials. Trap. Fixing the challenged instance and leaving twelve others live.
[ ] Preserve documents immediately, including internal marketing discussion. Why. It exists, it will be produced, and deleting it converts an advertising problem into a spoliation problem. Trap. A well-meaning tidy-up of the campaign folder.
[ ] Coordinate the response across regimes. Why. Statements to a regulator, defences in litigation, and disclosures to investors about the same claim must be consistent and are typically drafted by different people. Trap. Three teams, three narratives.
[ ] Notify the supplier and the indemnity at the outset where the claim depends on supplied material. Why. Late notification frequently forfeits cover. Trap. Resolving the primary matter first and then discovering the notice condition.
[ ] Consider the self-regulatory forum for competitor disputes. Why. Fast, comparatively cheap, decided by people who understand substantiation, and a modification order delivers the commercial outcome. Trap. Litigating first and discovering the cheaper forum afterwards.

Phase 13. International clearance

[ ] Clear every claim by market, not globally. Why. Several jurisdictions now prohibit generic environmental claims and offset-based neutrality claims by legislation rather than assessing them case by case. Trap. Domestic clearance treated as sufficient for export packaging.
[ ] Check whether the substantiation regime is prescriptive. Why. Where domestic practice asks for a reasonable basis, other regimes specify the methodology, the verification, and the form of the evidence. Trap. One substantiation file assumed to satisfy every market.
[ ] Review comparative claims separately by market. Why. Comparative advertising is restricted far more in some jurisdictions than domestically. Trap. A comparative campaign rolled out globally from a domestic clearance.
[ ] Confirm symbols and disposal instructions per market. Why. Recyclability marks and packaging symbols are prescribed differently, and a familiar symbol used outside its home regime is a compliance failure. Trap. Artwork reuse across regions.
[ ] Match certification licence territory to distribution. Why. A label licensed for one region on packaging distributed more widely is both a breach and an unsupported claim. Trap. Distribution expanding without a licence review.
[ ] Design artwork for the market, not for the strongest available claim. Why. A single global pack carrying the boldest claim available anywhere is the most common structural error and the most expensive to correct once tooling exists. Trap. Packaging economics driving the compliance decision.

Phase 14. Diligence on a cleantech target

[ ] Ask for the claim register first. Why. Its absence is itself a finding, and an acquirer inherits every published claim. Trap. Reviewing the patent schedule and calling it IP diligence.
[ ] Walk the target's live estate independently. Why. The gap between what the target reports and what it publishes is the acquired exposure. Trap. Relying on a management representation about marketing claims.
[ ] Review the carbon position. Credits held, retired, committed; projects, methodologies, vintages; every public neutrality assertion depending on them. Why. These are liabilities with a marketing face. Trap. Treating credits as an asset schedule item.
[ ] Read supply agreements for the input claims they support. Why. A recycled content claim resting on a terminable supply arrangement is a marketing liability disguised as procurement. Trap. Reviewing supply terms for price and volume only.
[ ] Check chain of title on founding technology, which is frequently university-originated, and map any government funding obligations. Why. Standard, and standardly incomplete in this sector. Trap. Accepting a knowledge-qualified warranty in place of the records.
[ ] Assess standards exposure. Whether technology implements a standard, whether declared-essential patents are held with commitments attached, and whether any non-assertion pledge binds a successor. Trap. Pledges treated as marketing rather than as encumbrances.
[ ] Test trade secret hygiene rather than counting patents. Why. For recovery and conversion processes the durable asset is know-how, and the question is whether reasonable measures under 18 U.S.C. § 1839 can be evidenced. Trap. A policy document accepted as evidence of a programme.
[ ] Price the remediation. Why. Repackaging, artwork changes, and claim withdrawal have real cost and lead time. Trap. Treating claim defects as a warranty matter rather than a price adjustment.

Phase 15. Documents this checklist should produce

[ ] A claim register built from the live estate, with wording, location, evidence, reviewer, approval date, expiry date, and market. Why. Every question in this checklist is a query against it. Trap. A register maintained by marketing for marketing.
[ ] A substantiation file per claim, containing what existed before publication. Why. It is the first thing requested in every channel. Trap. A folder of supplier certificates presented as substantiation.
[ ] A certification licence summary covering scope, territory, audit status, revision mechanics, and consequences of failure. Why. These licences constrain product decisions and nobody reads them twice. Trap. A licence filed and never revisited.
[ ] A carbon position statement listing credits, projects, methodologies, retirements, and the claims each supports. Why. It is both the substantiation and the disclosure basis. Trap. Credits tracked in a finance system with no link to the claims.
[ ] A pre-approved sales claim library. Why. Most unauthorised claims come from salespeople answering questions, and a short list of approved sentences prevents more than a policy does. Trap. A policy with no library behind it.
[ ] A quarterly reconciliation record between consumer and investor communications. Why. It is an hour of work and it closes the gap regulators now look for. Trap. Reconciliation attempted by circulating documents rather than meeting.

Phase 16. Term-by-term remediation

[ ] "Sustainable" → the specific action. Sourcing to a named standard, a stated reduction against a stated baseline, or a defined material change. Why. Every defensible meaning survives the substitution. Trap. Substituting another vague adjective.
[ ] "Recyclable" → qualified by infrastructure. Why. The claim is about facilities available to a substantial majority of consumers where the product is sold. Trap. Retaining the symbol while qualifying the words.
[ ] "Compostable" → qualified by facility type. Why. Industrial-only compostability presented without qualification is the standard failure, and the whole item including closures must break down. Trap. Certification of the primary material only.
[ ] "Biodegradable" → deleted for landfilled products. Why. Complete decomposition within a short period after customary disposal is the requirement and landfill does not deliver it. Trap. Laboratory data offered as substantiation.
[ ] "Carbon neutral" → mechanism disclosed. Why. Reduction and offsetting are different representations, and offset-based claims now attract publication obligations. Trap. Disclosure of the mechanism in a sustainability report rather than beside the claim.
[ ] "Natural" → avoided. Why. No settled definition, not an environmental claim in substance, and the largest class action history in this list. Trap. Using it as a softener for a claim that could not otherwise be made.
[ ] "Free of X" → absence plus replacement assessed. Why. Removing a named substance and replacing it with an equally problematic one fails. Trap. Reformulation announced before the replacement is assessed.
[ ] "Made from recycled materials" → proportion plus accounting. Why. The proportion is the claim and the accounting determines what may be said about this unit. Trap. A percentage without a basis.
[ ] "Certified" → certifier and standard named. Why. A self-administered scheme in the visual language of third-party certification is deceptive whatever the small print says. Trap. A proprietary badge indistinguishable from an independent one.
[ ] "Up to X per cent" → conditions and comparator stated. Why. Consumers and regulators read maxima as typical performance. Trap. Best-case laboratory conditions presented without qualification.

Phase 17. Making the process survive

[ ] Give the register an owner with authority to stop a launch. Why. A register nobody can enforce is a document, not a control. Trap. Ownership assigned to someone who reports to the person launching the campaign.
[ ] Put the register where marketing can read it. Why. A control marketing cannot consult is a control marketing will bypass. Trap. A legal-only system requiring a request to query.
[ ] Keep the approval turnaround short and publish it. Why. Review processes are evaded in proportion to their latency, and social output moves in hours. Trap. A weekly review meeting governing daily publication.
[ ] Train once a year on the qualification rule alone. Why. If nothing else lands, most of the exposure disappears. Trap. A comprehensive session covering everything and changing nothing.
[ ] Measure and report four things. Claims live; claims expiring within ninety days; proportion with substantiation on file; gap between register and live estate at the last walk. Why. Boards fund what is measured and this is invisible until a challenge. Trap. Reporting campaigns reviewed.

[ ] Run the homepage test quarterly. Take the boldest sentence on the homepage and ask what it asserts, what evidence existed before publication, and where it may lawfully be said. Why. Three answers in a minute means the register is real; hesitation on any of them means it is not. Trap. Testing a claim you chose because you already knew the answer.
[ ] And run the technology equivalent. Ask what would still stop a competitor if every patent were invalidated. Why. In this sector the honest answer is usually process know-how, supply relationships, and installed base, which tells you where the marginal legal investment belongs. Trap. A protection strategy optimised for the asset that is easiest to describe in a funding deck.

Outcome. A claim register built from the live estate with a market column and expiry dates; a substantiation file that predates every claim; certification licences reviewed for scope, revision, and territory; carbon holdings matched to the claims they support; and one reconciliation showing that consumers and investors are being told the same thing.

The five things people get wrong

One. Building the register from marketing's records. The claims that cause trouble are the ones nobody approved: a salesperson's tender response, an unreviewed social post, a trade show banner. The register has to be built by walking the estate, and the gap between the estate and the records is the risk position.

Two. Treating "sustainable" as a mild word. It is the strongest unqualified general claim in common use, it implies whole-life-cycle benefit, and it is a class action magnet. Anything defensible that it was meant to convey can be said specifically instead.

Three. Letting the accounting and the sentence drift apart. Mass balance and book-and-claim support claims about proportions and attributes purchased, not about what is in the buyer's hand. Certificates are treated as if they travelled with the molecules, and they do not.

Four. Buying carbon credits through procurement and writing the claim in marketing. The two decisions are one decision. A portfolio bought on price will contain the vintages and methodologies that make the resulting neutrality claim indefensible, and nobody discovers this until the claim is challenged.

Five. Saying one thing to consumers and another to investors. It is the cheapest exhibit a plaintiff can be handed and it is entirely avoidable with one quarterly meeting between people who currently do not speak.

Key Authorities at a Glance

| Authority | Proposition | |---|---| | 15 U.S.C. § 45 | Unfair or deceptive practices | | 15 U.S.C. § 1051 | Application for registration | | 15 U.S.C. § 1052 | Refusals; descriptiveness; deceptiveness | | 15 U.S.C. § 1054 | Certification and collective marks | | 15 U.S.C. § 1064 | Cancellation; certification grounds | | 15 U.S.C. § 1114 | Infringement | | 15 U.S.C. § 1125 | False advertising | | 15 U.S.C. § 1127 | Definitions | | 7 U.S.C. § 6501 | Organic Foods Production Act | | 18 U.S.C. § 1833 | Whistleblower notice | | 18 U.S.C. § 1836 | DTSA civil action | | 18 U.S.C. § 1839 | Trade secret definition | | 35 U.S.C. § 101 | Patentable subject matter | | 35 U.S.C. § 112 | Enablement and written description | | 16 C.F.R. § 260 | Environmental marketing guides | | 16 C.F.R. § 255 | Endorsements | | 16 C.F.R. § 305 | Energy labelling | | 7 C.F.R. § 205 | National Organic Program | | POM Wonderful v. Coca-Cola | Regulation is not a Lanham Act defence | | Lexmark International v. Static Control Components | False advertising standing | | Time Warner Cable v. DIRECTV | Establishment claims | | Castrol v. Pennzoil | Attacking the tests | | Johnson & Johnson v. SmithKline Beecham | Implied falsity evidence | | Pizza Hut v. Papa John's International | Puffery limits | | Idaho Potato Commission v. G&T Terminal Packaging | Certification enforcement | | Green Guides review | Environmental marketing guidance | | Offset disclosure statutes | Offset claim disclosure | | Chain of custody standards | Input accounting | | Life cycle assessment | Comparative substantiation | | Recyclability labelling statutes | State symbol rules |