The long running dispute between Oatly AB and Dairy UK over the use of the word “milk” in Oatly’s slogan “Post Milk Generation” has ended with in a landmark ruling by the UK Supreme Court on 11 February 2026. The decision affirms legal protections around dairy specific terminology and sets a precedent with significant consequences for how plant based brands label and market their products.
1. Background to the dispute
Oatly applied in 2019 to register “Post Milk Generation” as a trade mark for both merchandise and a variety of oat‑based food and drink products. The mark was granted in 2021, but Dairy UK challenged its validity on the basis that EU‑retained and UK law restrict the “designations” of “milk” and “milk products” to foods derived from mammalian secretion.
The legal battle involved:
- An initial ruling by the UK IPO declaring the trade mark invalid (except for use on T‑shirts).
- A temporary win for Oatly in the High Court in 2023.
- Reversal by the Court of Appeal in 2024.
- Final appeal to the Supreme Court in December 2025.
The Supreme Court has now unanimously upheld the invalidity of the trade mark for food and drink categories.
2. The Supreme Court’s legal reasoning
The Court found that the term “Post Milk Generation” amounted to a “designation” referencing milk in a context legally reserved for dairy products.
It was held that the slogan did not clearly describe any product characteristic of oat based drinks. Therefore, its use in relation to plant‑based food and drink breached the statutory prohibition on dairy‑specific designations. However, the Court allowed the trade mark for Class 25 (T‑shirts), as dairy‑word protections do not apply to apparel.
3. Implications for plant‑based producers
The judgment signals a “strict approach” to category borrowing. Which is the practice of using terminology historically associated with regulated products (milk, cheese, wine, olive oil) to market alternatives. Plant‑based brands must now choose descriptors such as “oat drink” or “plant‑based drink” with far greater care to avoid regulatory intervention.
Plant‑based companies will need:
- More distinctive, non‑dairy‑derived branding;
- Clearer consumer communication about product nature; and
- Packaging and marketing aligned with precise legal definitions.
This may require substantial rebranding costs and diminished creative freedom, especially for companies who’s messaging intentionally juxtaposes themselves against the dairy industry.
4. Implications for the dairy industry
Dairy UK has celebrated the ruling as a major consumer protection victory, ensuring dairy words retain their legally defined meaning.
The ruling strengthens the dairy sector’s long‑standing argument that plant‑based competitors should not leverage dairy terminology to benefit from its cultural and culinary familiarity. The decision may:
- Improve marketplace clarity;
- Limit marketing strategies that compare directly with dairy;
- Preserve dairy’s linguistic and regulatory identity.
Oatly argues the opposite in that the ruling creates “an uneven playing field” but the Court was unmoved.
Conclusion
The Oatly “milk” judgment marks a decisive moment in UK food‑labelling law. For the dairy industry, it is a protective victory cementing strict legal definitions. For plant‑based producers, it imposes tighter marketing constraints and signals a regulatory environment less tolerant of linguistic innovation. As the sector continues to expand, compliance with terminology rules will become a central part of product development and brand strategy.
Clarke Willmott’s agricultural law team is proud to support dairy farmers and the wider agricultural sector with specialist advice on dairy regulations, contracts, and litigation. With in-depth experience in both contentious and non-contentious matters, the firm stands ready to assist clients in navigating trade mark disputes, labelling requirements, and the evolving legal landscape in agricultural and food law.
