Oatly loses 'Post Milk Generation' fight as UK Supreme Court backs Dairy UK

The UK Supreme Court has dismissed Oatly’s appeal in a closely watched trademark dispute, ruling that the slogan 'POST MILK GENERATION' was invalid when used in relation to oat-based food and drink products.

• The UK Supreme Court unanimously dismissed Oatly’s appeal and upheld that 'POST MILK GENERATION' was invalid for oat-based food and drink under retained EU dairy designation rules.

• The Court held that the term 'milk' was used as a 'designation' within the meaning of the 2013 Regulation, even though it was not the name of the product.

• The justices found the slogan did not clearly describe a characteristic quality of the products and therefore was not saved by the Regulation’s proviso.

The case, Dairy UK Ltd versus Oatly AB [2026] UKSC 4, centered on whether Oatly’s registered trademark infringed restrictions on the use of protected dairy terms under Regulation (EU) No.1308/2013, which continues to apply in domestic law following Brexit as assimilated law.

Oatly, the Swedish oat drink producer, registered 'POST MILK GENERATION' in April 2021 for certain categories of products. Dairy UK, the trade association for the UK dairy industry, challenged the registration later that year, arguing that its use was prohibited by section 3(4) of the Trade Marks Act 1994, which prevents registration of a trademark where its use is prohibited by another enactment or rule of law.

Dairy UK relied on Point 5 in Part III of Annex VII to the 2013 Regulation. That provision restricts the use of 'designations' such as 'milk' and 'milk products' to specific dairy products, subject to a limited exception where the designation is clearly used to describe a characteristic quality of the product.

The Intellectual Property Office hearing officer initially ruled that the trademark was invalid for oat-based food and drink products, although it could remain registered for non-agricultural goods such as clothing. The High Court overturned that decision, but the Court of Appeal restored the finding of invalidity. Oatly then appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal. Lord Hamblen and Lord Burrows delivered the judgment, with which Lord Hodge, Lord Briggs and Lord Stephens agreed.

The justices addressed two central issues.

First, they considered whether 'POST MILK GENERATION' used the term 'milk' as a 'designation' within the meaning of the Regulation.

Oatly argued that 'designation' meant the name of a food or drink, and that its slogan did not name the product. The Court rejected that interpretation. It held that 'designation' had a broad meaning and referred to the use of the term in respect of a food or drink, not merely its formal name. The prohibition applied where the protected term had been used in relation to a relevant product, and it was not necessary for it to appear as the product’s name.

The Court found that this interpretation was consistent with the natural meaning of the words and with the purpose of the Regulation, which aims to set fair standards of competition in relation to milk as a product. It also noted that Annex VII separately defines 'sales description' as meaning 'the name of the food', indicating that 'designation' was intended to have a different and wider meaning.

On that basis, the Court concluded that 'POST MILK GENERATION' fell within the scope of the prohibition because it used the term 'milk' as a designation in relation to oat-based food and drink.

The second issue was whether the slogan was nevertheless saved by the proviso to Point 5, which allows restricted designations where they are clearly used to describe a characteristic quality of the product.

Oatly argued that the phrase described the characteristic of being milk-free. The Court disagreed.

It held that the trademark was focused on describing the targeted consumers, particularly younger consumers who might be seen as belonging to a generation concerned about the production and consumption of milk. The slogan did not clearly describe a characteristic of the products themselves.

Even if the phrase could be interpreted as referring to a product characteristic, such as being free from milk, the Court found that it did so in an oblique and obscure way. It did not clearly indicate whether the product was entirely free of milk or merely low in milk content. The justices concluded that it was certainly not doing so 'clearly', as required by the proviso.

As a result, the trademark was not saved by the exception and was invalid in relation to oat-based food and drink products.

Commenting on the ruling, Dr Judith Bryans, CEO of Dairy UK, said, “We are delighted that the Supreme Court upheld the earlier decision of the Court of Appeal, confirming that Oatly’s trade mark ‘Post Milk Generation’ contravened the rules protecting reserved dairy terms.

“This ruling is an important decision for the sector as it finally provides clarity on how dairy terms can – and cannot – be used in branding and marketing. It brings greater certainty for businesses and helps ensure that long-established dairy terms continue to carry clear meaning for consumers, while allowing appropriate descriptors to be used where the law permits.”

The ruling leaves intact the earlier position that the mark could remain valid for non-agricultural goods outside the scope of the Regulation, such as clothing, because those products fall outside the dairy designation framework.

The decision will be closely read across the plant-based sector, where companies have frequently tested the boundaries of protected dairy terminology in branding. By adopting a broad interpretation of 'designation', the Supreme Court has clarified that protected dairy terms may capture more than just product names, extending to marketing language used in connection with non-dairy foods.