On 11 February 2026, the UK Supreme Court ruled against Oatly in a highly anticipated appeal concerning the use of dairy terminology for plant-based products (Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB [2026] UKSC 4). Jeremy Blum and Kyrana Hulstein analyse the judgment.

The appeal concerned Oatly’s trade mark for POST MILK GENERATION, registered for use in relation to oat-based food and drink products. Dairy UK, the trade association for the UK dairy industry, challenged the registration under sections 3(3)(b) and 3(4) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (the Act), which prevent registration of trade marks whose use is likely to deceive the public or is prohibited by law.

The challenge was brought on the basis that use of the mark was prohibited by assimilated EU law, specifically Article 78(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 (the 2013 Regulation).

The Regulation prohibits the use of the designation “milk” (and other dairy terms) in respect of products that do not meet the Regulation’s definition of milk or milk products, unless the term falls within the proviso in Point 5 of Annex VII, which allows use which clearly describes a characteristic quality of the product.

Previous decisions

Dairy UK’s challenge was first considered by the UKIPO, which upheld the objection based on section 3(4) of the Act on the basis that the use of the word “milk” was prohibited by point 5 of Annex VII, Part III of the 2013 Regulation.

The Hearing Officer dismissed the objection based on section 3(3)(b) of the Act, finding that the mark was not misleading to consumers, who would view it as “an ironic way of saying its goods have moved on from conventional milk and are for consumers of a ‘post-milk generation’”.

The High Court overturned the decision, concluding that the mark did not “designate” the products as milk and therefore fell outside of the prohibition. The Court was particularly compelled by the fact that the mark was not misleading to consumers.

The Court of Appeal reversed the High Court’s decision and held that the mark was invalid. It found that a trade mark constitutes a “designation” and “milk” was being used as a designation in POST MILK GENERATION, and it rejected Oatly’s attempt to rely on the proviso in Point 5 of Annex VII on the basis that POST MILK GENERATION would be understood as alluding to the fact that the goods are non-dairy products, but does not describe any such characteristic.

Oatly appealed to the Supreme Court, which is the UK’s highest appellate court.

Supreme Court’s decision

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed Oatly’s appeal.

The Court first considered the proper interpretation of “designation” in Point 5 of Annex VII to the 2013 Regulation and whether POST MILK GENERATION fell within its scope. It found that the term was broader than just the name of a product, encompassing any use “in respect of” a food or drink.

On that basis, the Court found that POST MILK GENERATION impermissibly used the term “milk” as a designation for oat-based products.

The Court then considered whether POST MILK GENERATION was saved by the proviso in Point 5 of the 2013 Regulation (on the basis that the designation clearly describes a characteristic quality of the product).

Oatly argued that the phrase highlighted the milk-free nature of its products, but the Court rejected this.

The Court found instead that the mark conveyed an ambiguous message, which described the targeted consumers, rather than a characteristic of the product.

The Court compared the phrase to the hypothetical “Post-Alcohol Generation” as applied to drinks, noting it would not be clear from this whether the product was alcohol free or merely had reduced alcohol content. As a result, the requirement of clarity was not satisfied.

The Supreme Court therefore concluded that POST MILK GENERATION was invalidly registered for oat-based food and drink products.

Key takeaways

The ruling confirms the narrow scope for trade mark registrations for dairy terminology in the plant-based sector. Creative branding that references milk, or even cream, butter or cheese, may be caught by the 2013 Regulation unless it clearly describes a permitted product characteristic.

However, the Supreme Court did accept that “milk-free” was permissible for dairy-free products, as such wording would fall within the proviso.

Jeremy Blum is a partner and Kyrana Hulstein is an associate with Bristows in London. Jeremy is also a member of the MARQUES Dispute Resolution Team. Thanks to members of the MARQUES International Trade Mark Law and Practice Team for their help in commissioning this article.