UK Supreme court rules that oat milk can’t actually be called milk

by

The UK’s highest court has ruled against Oatly in a lengthy legal dispute concerning how plant-based products are branded.

This decision comes after a long-running disagreement between the company and the dairy industry regarding whether products made from oats can be legally labeled and advertised as ‘milk’.

The UK Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that Oatly can’t trademark or use its slogan, “Post Milk Generation.” This decision ends a long legal battle that went through several lower courts.

Why Oatly lost its trademark fight

The Supreme Court has finally ruled on whether plant-based drinks can legally be called ‘milk,’ according to Laurie Bray, a trademark attorney at Withers & Rogers. Unfortunately for Oatly, the decision didn’t go their way.

Okay, so here’s the deal – there are rules about what you can call certain products, especially stuff like milk, wine, and olive oil. It basically means you can only use those terms to describe the real thing – like, milk legally has to come from actual dairy animals. It’s a bit of a ‘no duh’ rule, but apparently it’s important to have it written down!

Oatly originally requested to trademark the phrase “Post Milk Generation” in the UK back in 2019, and the trademark was approved in 2021. The company maintained that using the word “milk” in a trademark was acceptable as long as it wasn’t used to simply describe the product.

The UK Supreme Court has ruled that oat milk can no longer be called milk

— TopMob (@TopMob) February 11, 2026

In 2023, the Intellectual Property Office initially dismissed the argument, siding with Dairy UK, who claimed the wording was misleading. Although Oatly won an appeal in December of that year, the Court of Appeal reversed this decision, leading Oatly to take the case to the Supreme Court.

Okay, so as a gamer who enjoys a good post-workout protein shake, this news is actually pretty big. Basically, the folks at Dairy UK just got a ruling that finally clarifies what companies can and can’t say when they’re branding and marketing dairy products. It’s good news because it means businesses know where they stand, and honestly, it protects us consumers. We’ll still know what ‘dairy’ actually means when we’re buying stuff, but companies can still use other words to describe their products as long as it’s legal. It’s like having clear rules in a game – everyone knows what’s allowed, and it keeps things fair.

Despite the outcome, Oatly said it strongly disagreed with the decision.

As a big fan of plant-based alternatives, I was really disappointed to hear about this decision. Oatly’s Bryan Carroll pointed out that it just creates confusion for shoppers and gives a huge advantage to traditional dairy companies. It feels like they’re blocking Oatly from using the phrase ‘Post Milk Generation’ on their packaging, which isn’t fair competition and ultimately isn’t good for us, the public. It just seems like they’re trying to hold back innovation!

Carroll explained that the company wants to make its ‘Post Milk Generation’ products available to its dedicated fans.

Legal analysts believe this ruling could have wider implications than just one company. It might enable trade groups in other European nations to dispute similar trademarks, and the same principles would apply to terms for dairy products like cream, butter, cheese, and yogurt.

Richard May, a lawyer at Osborne Clarke, advises plant-based food companies to use straightforward terms like ‘oat drink’ or ‘plant-based drink’ to avoid legal issues.

Generally, this ruling suggests that UK regulators and courts will likely be strict when companies try to extend a brand name from one legally defined product category to another. Businesses that rely on specific product names for branding – in the dairy industry or any other – should anticipate close examination of their strategies and prepare accordingly.

In 2024, the Ohio Supreme Court made a surprising ruling: boneless chicken wings aren’t necessarily bone-free. This came after a customer injured his esophagus while eating one, leading the court to consider what the term ‘boneless’ actually means.

Read More

2026-02-11 20:49