Supreme court ruling for Dairy UK Ltd v. Oatly AB
The UK Supreme Court has handed down its long‑awaited judgment in Dairy UK Ltd (Respondent) v Oatly AB (Appellant) ruling on whether Oatly’s well‑known slogan “POST MILK GENERATION” can lawfully function as a trade mark for its oat‑based food and drink products.
This decision brings welcome clarification to a highly contested area of law: the extent to which dairy‑related terms can be used in the marketing of plant‑based alternatives. The ruling is significant not only for food manufacturers but for brand owners navigating the complex interface between marketing language and statutory restrictions.
What was the Oatly trade mark dispute about?
Oatly had registered “POST MILK GENERATION” as a trade mark within the UK in 2021 for use on oat‑based products and branded T‑shirts. Dairy UK, representing the UK dairy industry, argued that the term was invalid because EU Regulation 1308/2013 (retained in UK law post‑Brexit) prohibits the use of dairy “designations” (such as milk) for non‑dairy products.
The core question was whether Oatly’s slogan amounted to a “designation” of milk, and if so, whether it was nevertheless saved by an exemption permitting the use of such terms where they “clearly describe a characteristic quality of the product.” This has involved significant and costly litigation to the Supreme Court, as follows:
- The IPO initially found the slogan invalid for oat‑based products (but valid for clothing).
- The High Court overturned that ruling, holding that the slogan did not function as a product “designation.”
- The Court of Appeal reinstated the IPO’s invalidity decision.
- Oatly appealed to the Supreme Court, which has now delivered final judgment.
The Supreme Court concluded on 11th February 2026 that “POST MILK GENERATION” is a prohibited ‘designation’ when used for oat‑based food and drink, meaning it cannot serve as a registered trade mark for those products.
The Court therefore upheld Dairy UK’s challenge, confirming that the Oatly’s trade mark is invalid insofar as it relates to oat‑based food and drink, but the registration remains valid for T‑shirts, which fall outside the scope of the Regulation.
What does this mean for brand owners?
This judgment serves as a reminder that early legal advice remains essential when developing brand strategies that might engage regulated terminology. Further, intellectual property rights in the UK continue to be shaped by post‑Brexit retained EU law, and this case reinforces that long‑standing EU restrictions (on dairy terminology) still apply.
As always, where companies or individuals wish to safeguard their brand, image or innovative product lines, specialist advice should be sought to secure the most effective and enforceable protection pathways within the UK legal framework. Even if a trade mark is registered, this does not mean it cannot later be ‘undone’.
If you require advice on your trade marks and how best to protect your valuable, creative endeavours, please do not hesitate to contact our IP expert, Gabriella Shepherd on 0330 058 5222.
