In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB [2026] UKSC 4, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom addressed a dispute between the traditional dairy industry and the rapidly expanding plant-based sector.
The case focused on two issues: whether Oatly’s “POST MILK GENERATION” slogan used the protected term “milk” as a designation for non-dairy products and whether the phrase could still be allowed because it described a characteristic of Oatly’s products.
These questions were central to the trade mark analysis: because the slogan would not be understood as identifying the commercial source of oat-based goods, it could not serve as a distinctive indicator of origin. The Supreme Court ultimately confirmed that Oatly’s “POST MILK GENERATION” trade mark was invalid for oat-based products, sending a clear message to brands about the limits of slogans that reference regulated product terms.
Background
The proceedings were brought by Dairy UK Ltd, the trade association representing the UK dairy industry, against Oatly AB, a prominent producer of oat-based dairy alternatives.
Dairy UK challenged aspects of Oatly’s marketing. They argued that certain statements and the branding risked misleading consumers and eroded the regulatory framework around acceptable dairy-related terminology.
At first instance, the High Court largely rejected Dairy UK’s challenge. It found that the average consumer would understand that Oatly’s products are plant-based and distinct from dairy.
The Court of Appeal, however, took a different view. While it did not find widespread consumer confusion, it found that some aspects of Oatly’s messaging could suggest a broader association with dairy products.
Alongside those advertising and labelling issues, the courts considered a central question: could “POST MILK GENERATION” function as a trade mark?
The POST MILK GENERATION Trade Mark
Oatly had secured trade mark registration for “POST MILK GENERATION” in relation to various plant-based food and drink products.
Dairy UK argued that the phrase lacked distinctiveness. In their view, it functioned primarily as a promotional statement, not a badge of origin. The phrase described a perceived shift in consumer behaviour – a move “beyond milk”. That type of language, they said, should remain available to the wider market.
The Supreme Court’s decision
The Supreme Court agreed with Dairy UK. Oatly’s “POST MILK GENERATION” trade mark lacked a sufficient level of distinctiveness required for protection in connection with oat-based goods.
The Court confirmed that slogans are not excluded from trade mark protection, but the threshold remains the same. A trade mark must identify the commercial origin of goods, not simply convey a promotional statement.
The Court also noted an important regulatory principle. Under the food labelling rules, the term “milk” is reserved for mammary secretions from animals. Plant-based products must make their origin clear.
Applying the perspective of the reasonably well-informed, observant and circumspect consumer, the Court found that “POST MILK GENERATION” would be understood primarily as a statement about a broader cultural and dietary trend. It signals a broader movement rather than identifying the commercial source of the goods.
Hence, it was decided that Oatly’s slogan could not serve as a trade mark since consumers would perceive it as a general statement about a post-dairy movement rather than as an indicator of origin. In practical terms, that is decisive. It means that a phrase that describes a market shift cannot easily distinguish one business from another. Oatly’s trade mark registration was therefore deemed invalid for oat-based goods.
On the advertising issues, the Court restored the High Court’s approach. Clear plant-based labelling means consumers were unlikely to confuse oat drinks with dairy products. The same consumer awareness, however, reinforces why the slogan reads as a general statement rather than a distinctive indicator of origin.
What this means for brands
The judgment does not weaken brand protection; it refines it.
Three practical points for your business:
· A campaign slogan does not automatically qualify for trade mark protection. It depends on whether the message is capable of identifying origin, not just whether it resonates.
· Movement-driven language carries risk. Phrases that only capture cultural or market trends may struggle to meet the distinctiveness test.
· Strategy at the outset saves cost later. Clearance, positioning, and structured brand development reduce the risk of invalidity challenges and enforced rebranding.
In fast-moving sectors such as plant-based foods and drinks, the line between persuasive marketing and protectable IP can be fine. The commercial consequences are not.
Protecting your brand position
Trade marks are long-term assets. They work best when built with clarity and purpose from the start.
Early, measured advice reduces risk. It strengthens protection. It keeps your brand accelerating without distraction.
If you would like to review your portfolio or sense-check a proposed slogan, our trade mark team would be pleased to support you – discreetly, commercially, and with your wider objectives in view.
