UK Supreme Court Invalidates Oatly’s “Post Milk Generation” Trade Mark
Published 6 March 2026
Matthew Murphy
In a significant decision for food marketing and trade mark law, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, in February 2026, has unanimously ruled that the slogan “Post Milk Generation” cannot be validly registered as a trade mark for oat-based food and drink products. The ruling came in the case of Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, where the Court upheld the earlier decision of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales and found that the mark was invalid because its use would violate statutory restrictions on dairy terminology.
Background of the Dispute
The dispute arose after plant-based food company Oatly AB applied to register the trade mark “POST MILK GENERATION” in the United Kingdom for oat-based foods and beverages. The trade association Dairy UK challenged the registration before the UK Intellectual Property Office, arguing that the mark violated UK trade mark law because it incorporated the protected term “milk” in connection with non-dairy products.
Under section 3(4) of the Trade Marks Act 1994, a trade mark cannot be registered if its use would be prohibited by another law. Dairy UK argued that such a prohibition existed in EU Regulation 1308/2013, which regulates agricultural markets and restricts the use of dairy designations such as “milk”, “cheese”, and “yoghurt” to products derived from animal milk. Although the UK has left the EU, this regulation continues to apply domestically as retained or assimilated law.
Earlier Proceedings
The case passed through several levels of litigation. Initially, the hearing officer at the UK Intellectual Property Office ruled that the mark was invalid for oat-based foods and drinks but could remain registered for unrelated products such as T-shirts, which fall outside the agricultural regulation.
The decision was overturned by the High Court, which held that the slogan did not constitute a “designation” of milk within the meaning of the regulation. However, the Court of Appeal reversed that judgment, finding that the use of “milk” in the slogan did fall within the regulatory prohibition. Oatly subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed Oatly’s appeal. The Court held that the phrase “Post Milk Generation” does use the word “milk” as a “designation” within the meaning of the relevant agricultural regulation. As a result, the mark’s use in relation to plant-based products would contravene the law reserving dairy terminology for products derived from animal milk.
Oatly also argued that the slogan should fall within an exception allowing dairy terms to be used where they clearly describe a characteristic quality of the product. The Court rejected this argument, concluding that the phrase did not describe the qualities of the oat-based goods but rather referred to a generational or marketing concept. Accordingly, the exception did not apply.
Implications for Plant-Based Branding
The ruling has broader implications for the rapidly growing plant-based food sector. It confirms that UK trade mark law cannot be used to circumvent statutory restrictions on the use of protected agricultural terms. Even when dairy terminology appears within a broader slogan or branding phrase, it may still constitute a prohibited designation if used in relation to plant-based foods.
The decision also highlights the continuing influence of EU-derived food labelling regulations in the UK post-Brexit. Companies marketing dairy alternatives must therefore carefully consider whether their branding incorporates protected terminology that could invalidate a trade mark registration.
Comment
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Dairy UK v Oatly reinforces a fundamental principle of trade mark law: a mark cannot be registered if its use would be unlawful. By confirming that dairy designations cannot be incorporated into branding for plant-based foods, the Court has provided important guidance for the food industry and clarified the limits of trade mark protection where other regulatory regimes apply.
Background of the Dispute
The dispute arose after plant-based food company Oatly AB applied to register the trade mark “POST MILK GENERATION” in the United Kingdom for oat-based foods and beverages. The trade association Dairy UK challenged the registration before the UK Intellectual Property Office, arguing that the mark violated UK trade mark law because it incorporated the protected term “milk” in connection with non-dairy products.
Under section 3(4) of the Trade Marks Act 1994, a trade mark cannot be registered if its use would be prohibited by another law. Dairy UK argued that such a prohibition existed in EU Regulation 1308/2013, which regulates agricultural markets and restricts the use of dairy designations such as “milk”, “cheese”, and “yoghurt” to products derived from animal milk. Although the UK has left the EU, this regulation continues to apply domestically as retained or assimilated law.
Earlier Proceedings
The case passed through several levels of litigation. Initially, the hearing officer at the UK Intellectual Property Office ruled that the mark was invalid for oat-based foods and drinks but could remain registered for unrelated products such as T-shirts, which fall outside the agricultural regulation.
The decision was overturned by the High Court, which held that the slogan did not constitute a “designation” of milk within the meaning of the regulation. However, the Court of Appeal reversed that judgment, finding that the use of “milk” in the slogan did fall within the regulatory prohibition. Oatly subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed Oatly’s appeal. The Court held that the phrase “Post Milk Generation” does use the word “milk” as a “designation” within the meaning of the relevant agricultural regulation. As a result, the mark’s use in relation to plant-based products would contravene the law reserving dairy terminology for products derived from animal milk.
Oatly also argued that the slogan should fall within an exception allowing dairy terms to be used where they clearly describe a characteristic quality of the product. The Court rejected this argument, concluding that the phrase did not describe the qualities of the oat-based goods but rather referred to a generational or marketing concept. Accordingly, the exception did not apply.
Implications for Plant-Based Branding
The ruling has broader implications for the rapidly growing plant-based food sector. It confirms that UK trade mark law cannot be used to circumvent statutory restrictions on the use of protected agricultural terms. Even when dairy terminology appears within a broader slogan or branding phrase, it may still constitute a prohibited designation if used in relation to plant-based foods.
The decision also highlights the continuing influence of EU-derived food labelling regulations in the UK post-Brexit. Companies marketing dairy alternatives must therefore carefully consider whether their branding incorporates protected terminology that could invalidate a trade mark registration.
Comment
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Dairy UK v Oatly reinforces a fundamental principle of trade mark law: a mark cannot be registered if its use would be unlawful. By confirming that dairy designations cannot be incorporated into branding for plant-based foods, the Court has provided important guidance for the food industry and clarified the limits of trade mark protection where other regulatory regimes apply.