13. The expert from Germany presented an amendment proposal that aimed to clarify that only light-signalling devices may incorporate an illuminated manufacturer logo (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2025/2, GRE-92-20 and GRE-92-33-Rev.1). The expert from India proposed further modifications (GRE-92-28), while the expert from OICA made an alternative proposal (GRE-92-30). GRE had an in-depth discussion on the topic which focused on two major elements:

• For granting an exemption to small logos, which criteria should be used – their area (in square cm) or character height (in mm),
• Whether the prohibition should be included only in UN Regulation No. 48 or in UN Regulations No. 149 as well.

14. In the absence of consensus, the expert from Germany decided to withdraw the proposal and to explore a possibility of submitting a new amendment package. GRE thanked Germany for their efforts and agreed to return to this topic in the future. In the interim, GRE reiterated its request to the type approval authorities to refrain from granting type approvals to road illumination devices and retro-reflectors with illuminated manufacturer logos.

13. The expert from Germany presented an amendment proposal that aimed to clarify that only light-signalling devices may incorporate an illuminated manufacturer logo (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2025/2, GRE-92-20 and GRE-92-33-Rev.1). The expert from India proposed further modifications (GRE-92-28), while the expert from OICA made an alternative proposal (GRE-92-30). GRE had an in-depth discussion on the topic which focused on two major elements:

• For granting an exemption to small logos, which criteria should be used – their area (in square cm) or character height (in mm),
• Whether the prohibition should be included only in UN Regulation No. 48 or in UN Regulations No. 149 as well.

14. In the absence of consensus, the expert from Germany decided to withdraw the proposal and to explore a possibility of submitting a new amendment package. GRE thanked Germany for their efforts and agreed to return to this topic in the future. In the interim, GRE reiterated its request to the type approval authorities to refrain from granting type approvals to road illumination devices and retro-reflectors with illuminated manufacturer logos.

13. The expert from Germany presented an amendment proposal that aimed to clarify that only light-signalling devices may incorporate an illuminated manufacturer logo (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2025/2, GRE-92-20 and GRE-92-33-Rev.1). The expert from India proposed further modifications (GRE-92-28), while the expert from OICA made an alternative proposal (GRE-92-30). GRE had an in-depth discussion on the topic which focused on two major elements:

• For granting an exemption to small logos, which criteria should be used – their area (in square cm) or character height (in mm),
• Whether the prohibition should be included only in UN Regulation No. 48 or in UN Regulations No. 149 as well.

14. In the absence of consensus, the expert from Germany decided to withdraw the proposal and to explore a possibility of submitting a new amendment package. GRE thanked Germany for their efforts and agreed to return to this topic in the future. In the interim, GRE reiterated its request to the type approval authorities to refrain from granting type approvals to road illumination devices and retro-reflectors with illuminated manufacturer logos.

13. The expert from Germany presented an amendment proposal that aimed to clarify that only light-signalling devices may incorporate an illuminated manufacturer logo (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2025/2, GRE-92-20 and GRE-92-33-Rev.1). The expert from India proposed further modifications (GRE-92-28), while the expert from OICA made an alternative proposal (GRE-92-30). GRE had an in-depth discussion on the topic which focused on two major elements:

• For granting an exemption to small logos, which criteria should be used – their area (in square cm) or character height (in mm),
• Whether the prohibition should be included only in UN Regulation No. 48 or in UN Regulations No. 149 as well.

14. In the absence of consensus, the expert from Germany decided to withdraw the proposal and to explore a possibility of submitting a new amendment package. GRE thanked Germany for their efforts and agreed to return to this topic in the future. In the interim, GRE reiterated its request to the type approval authorities to refrain from granting type approvals to road illumination devices and retro-reflectors with illuminated manufacturer logos.

13. The expert from Germany presented an amendment proposal that aimed to clarify that only light-signalling devices may incorporate an illuminated manufacturer logo (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2025/2, GRE-92-20 and GRE-92-33-Rev.1). The expert from India proposed further modifications (GRE-92-28), while the expert from OICA made an alternative proposal (GRE-92-30). GRE had an in-depth discussion on the topic which focused on two major elements:

• For granting an exemption to small logos, which criteria should be used – their area (in square cm) or character height (in mm),
• Whether the prohibition should be included only in UN Regulation No. 48 or in UN Regulations No. 149 as well.

14. In the absence of consensus, the expert from Germany decided to withdraw the proposal and to explore a possibility of submitting a new amendment package. GRE thanked Germany for their efforts and agreed to return to this topic in the future. In the interim, GRE reiterated its request to the type approval authorities to refrain from granting type approvals to road illumination devices and retro-reflectors with illuminated manufacturer logos.