Spilt Milk: Lessons from Oatly’s Battle Over Dairy Word

The recent UK Court of Appeal ruling in the case of Oatly v Dairy UK offers a significant lesson for business owners about the power of words in trade marks and branding. The dispute over Oatly’s use of the term milk in its slogan “Post Milk Generation” highlights the legal and strategic complexities that can arise from the language used, especially in highly regulated industries like food and drink.

Oatly’s case underscores the critical need to understand the legal framework governing specific terms. EU Regulation No 1308/2013, which restricts the use of the term milk to dairy products derived from animals, serves as a clear example of how regulatory constraints can shape branding strategies. For businesses, this reinforces the importance of conducting thorough due diligence before adopting terminology that could conflict with established legal definitions or industry standards.

Dairy UK’s objection to Oatly’s trade mark application hinged on the argument that the term milk, when used to market plant-based products, could mislead consumers. This case highlights the importance of clarity in branding. Business owners must ensure that their product names, slogans, and marketing materials convey accurate and unambiguous messages about their products to avoid potential legal disputes or customer confusion.

The financial and reputational risks associated with litigation are another key takeaway. Oatly’s protracted legal battle demonstrates how disputes over branding can become costly and time-consuming. For entrepreneurs, it is vital to assess the potential risks and benefits of pursuing trademarks that may provoke controversy. Opting for clear, compliant terminology from the outset can save businesses from unnecessary legal and financial burdens.

While Oatly argued that the ruling favours “Big Dairy” and hinders competition, this narrative does not alter the legal outcome. For business owners, this underscores the importance of balancing public perception with compliance. While aligning branding with consumer values can be a powerful strategy, it is no substitute for adhering to legal standards.

Interestingly, the Court upheld Oatly’s trade mark for T-shirts while rejecting its application for food and drink products, showing the value of adaptability in branding strategy. Diversifying trade mark applications can ensure that even if one aspect faces legal challenge, other components of the branding strategy may remain viable.

The Oatly case serves as a cautionary tale for businesses navigating the intricacies of trade marks in regulated markets. Words hold significant weight, not only in their marketing appeal but also in their legal implications. By carefully evaluating terminology and its potential ramifications, business owners can minimise risks, ensure compliance, and strengthen their brand's foundation for long-term success.