By Lauren Reynolds
Introduction
In the last two decades, consumer consciousness surrounding the production of goods has heightened, with many consumers choosing to support products that are created in more sustainable manners.[1] With such a shift in consumer behavior, many companies have shifted practices to accommodate more sustainable practices.[2] To signal to consumers that products meet certain standards of energy-efficiency, sustainability, and other environmentally conscious factors, the use of ecolabels has grown in popularity.[3] However, due to the rise of possible misleading labels, the Federal Trademark Commission issued guidance on green trademarks to facilitate the use of third-party trademarks to demonstrate environmental excellency.[4] Along with third-party trademark certification programs, several government-sponsored certifications are also available to manufactures, with the “Energy Star” program run by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of Energy (DOE) acting as the model for environmental trademark certification in the United States.[5] T o qualify for the Energy Star certification, the product is “required to be tested in an accredited laboratory and qualifying product information to be submitted to the government.”[6] This testing certifies that products meet certain energy efficiency requirements, with products earning the label heralded as top-performing and cost-effective to American consumers.[7]
A lthough the Energy Star certification aims to increase transparency among consumers, shifts in standards for certification of various products has led to consumer confusion in what the certification represents.[8] Dzielak v. Whirlpool Corp. highlights consumer confusion surrounding environmental trademark certifications when certification standards are subject to change.[9]
Dzielak v. Whirlpool: Case Summary
In 2006, after acquiring Maytag Corporation, Whirlpool, a home appliance manufacturer, sought to qualify legacy Maytag washers from the corporation acquisition for the Energy Star program.[10] At the time that Whirlpool sought the Energy Star certification, the testing procedure required measuring the capacity of top-loading washers through “sealing its ‘clothes container’ with a plastic sheet and filling [the washer] with ‘water to its uppermost edge.’”[11] The phrase “water to its uppermost edge” presented an ambiguity in the measuring for some top-loading Maytag washers, as these washers had four different fill levels, and it was unclear which of four levels was the uppermost edge of the washer.[12] To enable the maximum amount of Maytag washers to qualify for the Energy Star Program, Whirlpool sought and received approval from a DOE representative to use the highest fill level as the measurement for washers that had variable fill levels .[13] In April 2009, after rigorous testing at the maximum fill level, Whirlpool began shipping three of the legacy Maytag washers to retail locations and consumers with the Energy Logo affixed to the machines.[14]
However, due to the ambiguity surrounding the top-washer testing, DOE proposed a rule clarifying the testing standards in May 2010, replacing the “uppermost edge of the clothes container” to “the highest horizontal plane that a clothes load could occupy.”[15] In July 2010, DOE announced that this interpretation would be final; however, it did not announce a final compliance date for top-loader manufacturers. A t a minimum the agency had to provide 270 days before the interpretation could be enforceable.[16] Following the change in certification standards, Whirlpool began retesting all Maytag top-loader washers previously certified and determined in September 2010 that some of the models no longer fell within the Energy Star Program’s efficiency requirements.[17] Consequently, Whirlpool discontinued manufacturing legacy Maytag top-load washers that no longer qualified for the Energy Star Program.[18] However, DOE notified Whirlpool on January 19, 2011 that the primary washer used for the testing after the certification standard change would remain Energy Star certified until February 9, 2011.[19] After receiving the original certification under the Energy Star Program , Whirlpool sent over 174,000 units of these legacy Maytag models to retailers in seven states, where the plaintiffs had purchased the washers between November 2009 and December 2010.[20]
On January 5, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against Whirlpool and retailers who had sold the legacy Maytag washers with the Energy Star certification. A mong the many claims, the plaintiffs asserted that the Energy Star logo on the Maytag washers signaled to consumers that the washers met the current Energy Star certification standards, when in reality, the washers did not.[21] The District Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, explaining that the Energy Star logo may have led consumers to believe that the washers were more environmentally friendly and efficient, but that the plaintiffs did not establish the elements of an express breach of warranty under New Jersey law.[22] On appeal, the plaintiffs alleged the district court erred as a matter of law in dismissing their claim of express breach of warranty, arguing again that the Maytag washers did not meet the Energy Star standards using the amended fill level testing requirements.[23]
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals analyzed the claims under three theories to determine if the Energy Star logo created an express warranty under state law.[24] Under all three theories, the Authorized-Use Theory, the Certification-Statement Theory, and the Absolute-Compliance Theory, the c ourt concluded that the District Court did err in rejecting the [1] plaintiffs’ arguments.[25] By rejecting the plaintiffs’ arguments, the c ourt concluded that the Energy Star logo did not create an express warranty, meaning that the logo did not “constitute an affirmation, promise, or description” that the washers met current Energy Star certification standards.[26]
Analysis
This case raised a novel issue between the intersection of federal law and state law: trademark certification and breach of warranty.[27] Through its decision, the c ourt concluded that the use of the Energy Star logo only indicated that the EPA and DOE authorized its use and that Whirlpool could use the logo on its washers at the time of sale.[28] However, the c ourt alluded that those impacted by certification should not seek compensation from the user of a mark, but instead from the owner of the trademark certification.[29]
The c ourt’s decision has broad implications for consumers, manufacturers, and trademark certification issuers. First, the decision may minimize consumer’s weight given to trademark certification of products. The court decided that the use of a logo does not represent explicit efficiency standards but instead permission to use the logo, which may lead consumers to doubt that products affixed with environmental trademark certification logos truly identify goods and services that meet their values and sustainability goals.[30]
M anufacturers that have spent time and resources to gain environmental trademark certification may feel negative impacts.[31] Because the c ourt alluded to trademark certifications representing nothing more than an agreement between two parties and not environmental excellence, manufacturers may not continue to seek certifications in the future.[32] In turn, a decline in manufacturers seeking certification in environmental trademark certification could also exacerbate manufacturer “greenwashing” through vague claims of environmental excellency of a product.[33]
Lastly, the Third Circuit’s statement that consumers should instead focus their claims on trademark certification entities rather than manufacturers could lead to more lawsuits aimed at those issuing trademark certification. By endorsing certain products that may not meet the alleged certification requirements due to a change in standards, trademark certification entities may face a flood of consumer complaints and legal action. This could not only hurt certification entities’ reputations, but could also lead to certification programs having less transparent standards to consumers to avoid legal repercussions.[34]
Conclusion
Overall, environmental trademark certifications serve as an important tool for both consumers and manufacturers. Dzielak represents an important shift in what environmental trademark certifications mean to consumers and potentially affects how environmentally conscious products can be sought out in an age where products can be bought in seconds.[2]
[1] See Nika Hein, Factors Influencing the Purchase Intention for Recycled Products: Integrating Perceived Risk into Value-Belief-Norm Theory, 14 Sustainability, 3877 (2002).
[3] David Adelman & Austin Graeme, Trademarks and Environmental Governance, 93 Notre Dame L. Rev. 709, 716 (2017).
[4] Id.
[6] Dep’t of Energy & Env’t Prot. Agency, Memorandum of Understanding on Improving the Energy Efficiency of Products and Buildings (2009).
[7] Env’t Prot. Agency, How a Product Earns the ENERGY STAR Label, https://www.energystar.gov/products/how-product-earns-energy-star-label (last visited Feb. 1, 2026); Dep’t of Energy, Energy Star®, https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/energy-starr (last visited Feb. 1, 2026).
[8] See Dzielak v. Whirlpool Corp., 83 F.4th 244, 249 (2023).
[9] Id.
[10] Id. at 254.
[11] Id.; 10 C.F.R. §§ 3.1.2., 3.1.4. pt. 430, subpt. B, app. J1 (2004).
[12] Dzielak, 83 F.4th at 254.
[13] Id. at 255.
[14] Id.
[15] Id.
[16] Id.; 42 U.S.C. § 6294a(c)(7).
[17] Dzielak, 83 F.4th at 256.
[18] Id.
[19] Id.
[20] Id.
[21] Id. at 257.
[22] Id.
[23] Id. at 257, 260.
[24] Id. at 260.
[25] Id. at 266.
[26] Id. at 260, 266.
[27] See generally i d.
[28] See i d. at 266.
[29] Id. at 262.
[30] See Adelman & Graeme, supra note 3, at 715.
[31] See i d. at 719.
[32] See i d.
[33] See i d. at 720.
[34] See i d. at 723 (stating that certification programs must balance needs of key stakeholders and independence to maintain “the legitimacy of their standards.”).