Skip to content
A well-known trademark appeal in the case of Oatly AB v. Dairy UK Ltd. has been approved by the UK Supreme Court and is scheduled to be heard on December 10, 2025. In this case, Oatly AB is attempting to register Oatly’s trade mark “POST MILK GENERATION” as a trademark in the United Kingdom. At the nexus of trademark registrability, retained EU regulations following Brexit, and food labelling law, it raises an important legal question. The ability of plant-based businesses to market their goods in the shadow of legally protected dairy designations is at risk, not just a catchphrase for their brand.
The Causes of the Conflict
The Swedish food and beverage company Oatly AB, which is well-known for its oat milk products, submitted an application in November 2019 to register “POST MILK GENERATION” as a trademark in the UK. Clothing items like T-shirts (Class 25) and oat-based beverages and related products (Class 29) were the two categories of goods and services covered by the application. In April 2021, the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) formally registered the mark.
The registration was contested, nevertheless, by Dairy UK Ltd, a well-known trade group that represents the interests of the British dairy industry. Their arguments were two-fold:
- Section 3(3)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 – that the mark was deceptive in nature, as it implied a connection to dairy or a legal standing to claim ‘milk’ for oat-based products;
- Section 3(4) of the Act – that the use of the term “milk” in this context contravened retained EU law, specifically Article 78(2) and Part III of Annex VII to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 (which continues to apply in the UK post-Brexit).
This EU Regulation forms part of the Common Agricultural Policy and provides that the term “milk” shall be reserved exclusively for the product of the normal mammary secretion obtained from one or more milkings without either addition thereto or extraction therefrom. Oatly’s critics argued that using “milk” in its slogan would mislead consumers and undermine the legal protection of dairy terms.
IPO and Judicial Review
The UKIPO partially upheld Dairy UK’s objections in a January 2023 ruling. Noting that consumers were unlikely to interpret “POST MILK GENERATION” as implying the product contained actual milk, it rejected the argument that the slogan was fundamentally misleading under section 3(3)(b). Nevertheless, it maintained the challenge under section 3(4), finding that the slogan’s dairy-specific language made the mark’s use illegal in packaging contexts.
Oatly filed a High Court appeal. After concluding that the term “POST MILK GENERATION” did not amount to a “designation” of a dairy milk product, the High Court judge granted the appeal. It was instead regarded as an ideological or political statement that did not contravene any EU regulations.
Dairy UK was able to successfully appeal that decision to the Court of Appeal, though. Even nonliteral uses of the word “milk” could be illegal designations, the appellate court concluded in its ruling, siding with Dairy UK’s argument that they subtly alluded to dairy concepts in ways that went against the goals of Regulation 1308/2013.
The Supreme Court Appeal
Oatly was given permission by the Supreme Court to file a final appeal after this tumultuous litigation. Key legal issues, including the IPO’s decision, are anticipated to be clarified during the hearing:
- What does retained EU agricultural law define as a “designation”?
- Does a protected term like “milk” have protection if it is used in an expressive or nonliteral way?
- How should commercial speech and freedom of expression coexist with legally binding product definitions under UK trademark law?
These enquiries will be examined within the broader framework of the UK’s post-Brexit legal landscape, where UK courts are reinterpreting retained EU law while it still applies.
The Legal Risks
This case has far-reaching consequences that extend beyond Oatly or the particular slogan at issue. Two strong interests are at odds with one another:
- Traditional agricultural industries, which depend on robust legal protections for terms like “milk,” “cheese,” and “yoghurt” in order to preserve product quality and prevent consumer misunderstandings.
- Novel plant-based businesses that seek to position their goods as dairy substitutes are frequently constrained by laws that existed before they were created.
Whether plant-based brands can use creative or provocative language that references dairy terms without violating legal restrictions may depend on the appeal’s outcome.
Business Consequences
The language that plant-based brands can use in their marketing will probably be limited if the Supreme Court upholds the Court of Appeal’s ruling. Businesses may have to refrain from using even subtle allusions to protected terms, which would restrict their ability to be creative with their branding and make it more difficult for them to use value-based marketing (such as sustainability, animal welfare, and vegan products).
A decision in Oatly’s favour, however, would support the ideological and creative freedom of plant-based businesses and might pave the way for more expressive, campaign-style trademarks. That would probably be viewed as a win for free commercial speech and brand storytelling.
In any case, the decision will establish a significant precedent for how UK courts will interpret EU law that has been retained and how much UK trademark law will adapt to changing market conditions.
A Test Case for IP Law After Brexit
Issues of retained EU law are also prominent in this, one of the first trademark cases heard by the UK Supreme Court. Until specifically repealed or replaced by Parliament, the UK has continued to implement EU-derived regulations in a number of areas, including food law, following Brexit.
The Oatly case is a real-life illustration of how the UK judiciary can reinterpret EU law within its own borders. Depending on the Court’s interpretation of “designation,” the case may lead to new calls for legislative clarification regarding which EU regulations are still relevant and how they should be updated.
Key Legal Considerations
The ongoing legal battle surrounding Oatly’s “POST MILK GENERATION” trademark has brought several key legal considerations to the forefront. First and foremost, the interpretation of marketing slogans plays a crucial role in determining trademark validity. The Court of Appeal’s ruling emphasises that even non-literal uses of terms typically associated with dairy can be interpreted as misleading, thereby falling under legal scrutiny. This sets a precedent for how marketing slogans are crafted and understood in the context of food labelling and consumer protection, highlighting the need for brands to consult with a trademark attorney to ensure compliance with existing regulations.
Additionally, Oatly’s use of “milk” in its slogan poses significant questions regarding the balance between branding and legal restrictions. As the case develops, it becomes increasingly important for plant-based companies to navigate the complexities of trademark registration while remaining mindful of the legal frameworks that govern their branding efforts, including brand names and marketing slogans. The implications of this case extend beyond Oatly, as it could redefine how plant-based brands approach their marketing strategies in a landscape where consumer clarity and regulatory compliance are paramount.
Ultimately, the outcome of this appeal could shape the future of trademark law in the UK, determining the extent to which creative expressions in branding can coexist with stringent regulations designed to protect traditional agricultural terms. The legal ramifications are vast, and the decision will likely reverberate throughout the industry, influencing how brands position themselves in a competitive market.
Conclusion: More Than Just a Catchphrase
The brand slogan “POST MILK GENERATION” is more than just a catchphrase. It has turned into a legal battlefield for opposing viewpoints and changing markets. The UK’s highest court will now decide whether the phrase is considered a legal slogan or an illegal use of a dairy term.
It is anticipated that this appeal will have significant effects on food marketing, the preservation of traditional agricultural terminology in France, and the freedom of expression of plant-based businesses negotiating a regulatory framework that was created for a different era.
We at Trademarkroom will keep an eye on this historic case and offer knowledgeable advice from a trade mark attorney to companies and brand owners negotiating the changing landscape of intellectual property law in the UK following Brexit.
Keep an eye out for the December 2025 ruling.
Broader Implications
The ramifications of the Oatly case extend well beyond the immediate dispute over trademark validity. The ruling holds significant implications not just for the UK but also for how plant-based products are marketed across the European Union, particularly in light of retained EU regulations post-Brexit. The decision could set a precedent that influences how brand names and marketing strategies are developed, particularly for companies aiming to establish themselves in a market that is increasingly scrutinizing the language used around dairy alternatives.
Moreover, the case underscores a growing tension between traditional dairy producers in the UK dairy industry and emerging plant-based brands. As the demand for sustainable and alternative options continues to rise, the legal landscape must adapt to accommodate new market realities without stifling innovation. This case may prompt further regulatory discussions within the United Kingdom regarding what constitutes fair competition and consumer protection, potentially leading to changes in EU regulation interpretations that affect how brand names are perceived across borders.
In a broader context, the Oatly litigation in London reflects a global trend where brands are challenged over their use of specific terminology to describe food products. As countries grapple with what terms like “milk” or “cheese” should encompass in the realm of non-dairy alternatives, this case could serve as a touchstone in the debate over terminology usage, consumer rights, and the future of plant-based marketing within the regulatory frameworks of the United Kingdom and beyond.
Further Reading
For those interested in exploring related terms and the implications of the ongoing legal situation for the dairy industry, further reading on the positions of trade bodies like Dairy UK and the legal frameworks governing food labelling is recommended. The ongoing discussions surrounding trademark law and its intersection with consumer expectations are crucial for understanding the future landscape of food marketing.
What is post milk generation and how does it differ from traditional dairy production?
Post milk generation refers to the emerging trend of producing dairy alternatives that cater to health-conscious and environmentally aware consumers. Unlike traditional dairy production, which relies on animal farming, post milk generation focuses on plant-based ingredients, offering sustainable and ethical options that align with modern consumer values.
