On 11 February 2026, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by Oatly, confirming that its trade mark for the words “Post Milk Generation” is invalid for oat-based food and drink products. This decision provides important clarification on the scope of restrictions governing the use of dairy terms in the UK.
At the heart of the dispute was whether the inclusion of the word “milk” within a broader slogan amounted to unlawful use of a protected “designation” under EU Regulation 1308/2013. Dairy UK Ltd argued that the mark contravened the regulatory framework reserving dairy terminology for genuine milk products.
Oatly manufactures oat‑based food and drink products, and its UK trade mark "Post Milk Generation" was registered in April 2021 for oat‑based products in classes 29, 30 and 32, as well as for T‑shirts in class 25. Dairy UK, the trade association representing the UK dairy industry, applied to invalidate the trade mark in November 2021. The dispute centred on the interpretation of a regulation governing agricultural products.
Dairy UK argued that the trade mark should be invalidated pursuant to s.3(3)(b) and 3(4) of the Trade Marks Act 1994. These provisions state:
The EU regulation establishes a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products. It's very wide ranging and complex but defines milk and prohibits the use of the term milk on non-milk agricultural products.
The UK Intellectual Property Office held that the trade mark breached the EU regulation and was therefore invalidated. The High Court overturned this decision saying that because the trade mark used the term "milk", it was not prohibited under the EU regulation. However, the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court's decision.
A key point in this argument was whether the words 'Post Milk Generation' was a designation under the EU regulation. Oatly argued that a designation refers only to the name of a product, however, the court rejected this argument and adopted a broader interpretation. It held the view that the prohibition applies to the use of protected dairy terms in relation to non-dairy products, whether or not the terms are in the name of the product.
The Supreme Court emphasised that the regulatory purpose extends beyond consumer deception. It is also concerned with maintaining fair conditions of competition within the agricultural sector. Accordingly, even if consumers would not be misled, use of the word “milk” in relation to plant-based goods can be prohibited.
Oatly argued that the mark fell within an exception permitting designations that “clearly” describe a characteristic quality of the product. The Supreme Court disagreed. It concluded that “Post Milk Generation” does not clearly describe a product characteristic, such as being milk-free. Rather, the phrase was seen as referring to a generation of consumers. Any link to the absence of dairy content was indirect and insufficiently clear.
The appeal was therefore dismissed in full.
The judgment will be of particular relevance to plant-based food and beverage brands using dairy-adjacent language in marketing. The judgment is also relevant to other trade mark applicants seeking to register slogans incorporating regulated food terms - such as names for meat identifying the source animal ('Beef' or 'Lamb').
However, the judgment may also be applied to less obvious examples, such as geographical indications ('Champagne' '[Parmigiano] Reggiano'), or even words such as 'chocolate' and 'organic'. The restriction is not limited to product names and cannot be avoided simply by embedding protected terms within broader branding concepts.
Brand owners will need to strongly consider how they market their brands and what slogans they use. IP strategy needs to synergise with food regulation early, rather than at the stage when the product is launched and branded.
For more information, please contact our intellectual property team.
We produce a range of insights and publications to help keep our clients up-to-date with legal and sector developments.
Sign up
