The Polish Supreme Administrative Court (NSA), in its judgment of 5 February 2026 (II GSK 2015\/22), provided important clarification on the limits of using marketing terms in food labelling. The case concerned the use of the term \u201ccountry-style\u201d (\u201cwiejski\u201d) in the name of bread produced using industrial methods, including freezing and technological additives.<\/p>\n
IMPORTANT:<\/span><\/strong><\/span> The content, concepts and analyses published by IGI FOOD LAW constitute the intellectual property of IGI FOOD LAW and are protected under copyright law. Inspiration is welcome; however, we kindly ask for ethical use of our materials and respect for IGI FOOD LAW\u2019s know-how.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n The control authority considered that such labelling misled consumers and classified the product as an adulterated agri-food product<\/span><\/strong>. This position was subsequently upheld by the court of first instance, which concluded that the term \u201ccountry-style\u201d suggests traditional production methods and a simple composition, and therefore infringes the principles of fair consumer information.<\/p>\n The Supreme Administrative Court did not share this approach and annulled both the first instance judgment and the post-inspection recommendations. In its reasoning, the Court emphasised that the mere use of the term \u201ccountry-style\u201d in a product name does not automatically mislead consumers. The decisive factor is the nature of the statement \u2013 whether it constitutes an objective, verifiable claim about the product, or merely a marketing element designed to evoke positive associations.<\/p>\n As the Court stated: The Court therefore rejected the approach taken by both the authority and the lower court, which attempted to assign a strict normative meaning to the term \u201ccountry-style\u201d (e.g. traditional production, absence of additives), despite the lack of specific legal provisions governing such terms.<\/p>\n An important element of the judgment is also the interpretation of the \u201caverage consumer\u201d. Referring to the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the NSA confirmed that the consumer is attentive and reasonably well-informed, and assesses a product based on the overall set of available information \u2013 not solely on the product name, but also on ingredients, presentation and information provided at the point of sale. This directly challenges approaches that attribute decisive importance to a single element of labelling.<\/p>\n This judgment has significant practical implications for labelling strategies and marketing communication. It confirms that the use of terms such as \u201ccountry-style\u201d is not inherently prohibited, even in the context of industrial production.<\/p>\n However, such terms must not be communicated as specific, objective claims about the product (e.g., absence of additives, traditional production methods, or origin) if they are not substantiated in reality. From a compliance perspective, this requires an assessment not only of the product name itself, but of the entire informational context surrounding the product.<\/p>\n The boundary between permissible marketing language and misleading information remains fluid \u2013 and, as this case demonstrates, its interpretation may vary significantly between authorities and courts.<\/p>\n
\u201cTrade names of products are detached from the strict dictionary meaning of words. It cannot be assumed as a rule that selling bread under the name \u2018country-style bread\u2019 misleads the average consumer (\u2026) nor that evoking positive associations is equivalent to misleading.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\nImplications for the food industry<\/h3>\n