ARTICLE
13 August 2024

Keep Milking It – Oatly Ab v Dairy UK Ltd, [2023] EWHC 3204 (Ch)

B
Briffa

Contributor

Briffa is a specialist intellectual property law firm. We help all types of businesses to identify, protect, develop, monetise and enforce their intellectual property (IP).

But we’re a bit different from your average law firm. We’re not stuffy or overly corporate. We’re creative, transparent and competitively priced. And we go above and beyond to deliver exceptional customer service with quick turnaround times.

Over the past 30 years, we’ve assisted thousands of creative businesses with every aspect of IP law and played a key role in several high-profile cases. We have the capability, experience and resources to work with any client – whether you’re a small, independent creator or a global brand.

And since the beginning, that’s exactly what we’ve done. We’re proud to have worked with clients of all shapes and sizes across a broad range of sectors, from household names to individual entrepreneurs, inventors and artists.

In 2019, the company ‘Oatly', known for their oat-based milk alternatives, filed an application for POST MILK GENERATION (the "Trade Mark") in classes 29, 30 and 32.
European Union Intellectual Property
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

In 2019, the company 'Oatly', known for their oat-based milk alternatives, filed an application for POST MILK GENERATION (the "Trade Mark") in classes 29, 30 and 32. Dairy UK Ltd claimed in 2020 that using 'milk' in a trade mark used for a dairy-free alternative – and not a "mammary secretion" – is misleading. The UKIPO declared the trade mark invalid under EU regulation, after Dairy Milk Ltd filed an application for a declaration of invalidity. The High Court took a suitably alternative approach by overturning this declaration when Oatly appealed this decision.

Regulation (EU) 1308/2013 Article 78(2) and Annex VII (the EU Regulation) states that "milk" may only be used in definitions, designations and sales descriptions for products that constitute mammary secretions. These were the constraints that the UKIPO applied in the first instance. Oatly argued that the Trade Mark was not a definition, designation or sales description, but rather a reference to the consumer: it did not insinuate that the product was milk or a "mammary secretion" and therefore fell outside of the EU Regulation.

The High Court agreed with Oatly. Mr Justice Richard Smith cited the TofuTown case as a reminder that the EU Regulation was concerned with ensuring that designations and descriptions provided certainty of the product that is being sold. The Judge found that this was not applicable in this case because the Trade Mark alludes to a consumer who drinks milk alternatives rather than the product itself.

The Hight Court agreed with Oatly that the EU Regulation had been applied too broadly and allowed the appeal.

Comment

It is key that businesses selling plant-based goods understand that they cannot use animal-based words to describe their products in their trade marks. The trade mark cannot be deceptive – and brand owners should seek advice if the understanding could be blurred. This case does, however, demonstrate the onus placed on the application of a word in the context of the industry, rather than a strict application of the word's meaning. It confirms the creative scope for plant-based businesses to continue milking animal-based products in their trade marks.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More