Dairy terms, plant-based branding and the trade mark register after Dairy UK v Oatly

In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB [2026] UKSC 4 the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by Oatly AB and held its registered mark “POST MILK GENERATION” invalid in so far as it covered oat-based foods and drinks (classes 29, 30 and 32).

The respondent, Dairy UK Ltd, had sought invalidity under section 3 of the Trade Marks Act 1994, relying on section 3(4): where the use of a mark is prohibited by another enactment, registration must be refused or (if already granted) stripped back accordingly.

The route to the Supreme Court is itself a study in how “regulatory” and “trade mark” questions can become tangled. The mark was registered in April 2021 for oat-based food and drink and for T-shirts. Dairy UK’s invalidity application succeeded before a hearing officer at the Intellectual Property Office, except as to T-shirts; it was then restored by the High Court; reinstated by the Court of Appeal; and finally confirmed by the Supreme Court.

Two features of the decision explain why it reads as more than a niche dispute about plant-based marketing. First, the case confirms that the “reserved dairy term” regime bites even where consumer confusion is not the mischief. Secondly – and more importantly for brand owners – the court rejected the idea that the regime is only concerned with the product name: it can apply to broader trade mark and strapline use “in respect of” the goods.

The legal architecture: section 3(4) meets the dairy designation regime

The Supreme Court treated the appeal as turning on the correct interpretation of the relevant legislation, and in particular the scope of the prohibition on using protected dairy terms for non-dairy products.

The gateway is section 3(4) of the Trade Marks Act 1994, which blocks registration where “its use is prohibited” by a non-trade-mark enactment. The Supreme Court identified Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products Framework (Miscellaneous Amendments, etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 as having made minor amendments post‑Brexit, but the key constraint remained the EU-derived common market regulation for agricultural products – Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 – now operating domestically as “assimilated law”.

The judgment set out in full the operative parts of Annex VII, Part III of the regulation. “Milk” is exhaustively defined as mammary secretion; multiple “milk product” terms are reserved; and Point 5 provides the central prohibition: the “designations” in points 1 – 3 may not be used for any other product, subject to limited exceptions (traditional usage and/or where the designation is clearly used to describe a characteristic quality of the product).

Importantly, the court framed this as a regime concerned with the structuring of the market. It underlined Recital 76 as indicating that definitions and designations matter for “conditions of competition”, and treated that overtly competition-facing purpose as a key interpretive lens for Point 5.

The interpretive posture is also worth noting. The Supreme Court emphasised that, because this is assimilated law, the modern domestic approach to statutory interpretation applies: meaning is found through text read in context and in light of purpose, albeit with the EU origin potentially relevant to context and purpose. The court supported that approach by reference to a line of recent Supreme Court authority on domestic interpretation principles.

“Designation” is not confined to the product name

Oatly’s central submission was structurally simple: “designation” in Point 5 means (in substance) the name of the product. “POST MILK GENERATION”, it argued, is not the name by which consumers would ask for the goods; it is a trade mark/strapline. So, the prohibition should not apply.

The Supreme Court rejected that argument, and did so in a way that will matter for much more than dairy terminology. It reasoned that Point 5’s “designations” must be read alongside neighbouring provisions that expressly use “names”, and alongside the definition of “sale description” as “the name of the food”. The repeated use of distinct terms (“designations”, “names”, “sale description”) strongly suggested that “designation” is doing different work, and cannot simply be a synonym for “name”.

Because of that textual architecture, the court adopted a broader reading: “designation” refers to use in respect of the product, not merely the naming of it. For the Supreme Court, it was enough that “milk” appeared within the composite mark and was used in relation to non-dairy foods and drinks; it did not have to perform the role of a generic product name. Put shortly, it was “not necessary that it has been used as the name of the product”.

This is the doctrinal pivot. In the everyday practice of consumer goods branding, companies seldom confine themselves to a single “name”; they operate through brand worlds, campaigns and recurring slogans. The decision confirms that a protected dairy term embedded in that broader architecture can still be “used for” the product in the relevant sense, and so can be caught by Point 5’s prohibition.

Equally, and strategically significant for litigators, the court treated this as an interface question in which the sectoral regime has priority. If Point 5 prohibits the use, then section 3(4) does the rest: the trade mark register cannot be used to confer proprietary protection over a sign that the underlying food law rules exclude from lawful use for the relevant goods.

The court’s explanation of purpose: competition conditions, not deception

The hearing officer had found that “POST MILK GENERATION” would not deceive the average consumer for the purposes of section 3(3)(b) of the 1994 Act, describing it as an “ironic” message about moving on from conventional milk rather than a claim of dairy content. That finding might have been expected to carry real weight if the dairy-term regime were primarily a consumer deception measure.

The Supreme Court, however, treated deception as largely orthogonal to the core statutory aim. It held that Point 5’s purpose, in respect of milk, is to set out “fair conditions of competition”, and that this is distinct from consumer protection against deception.

That move matters because it discloses why the prohibition can legitimately operate as a strict rule even in a marketplace where consumers are sophisticated and “know what they mean” by plant-based “milk-like” products. The strictness is not a drafting mistake to be cured by a narrow reading; it is how the designation regime performs its category-governing function.

The court reinforced this approach when it declined to attribute interpretive force to a painstaking comparison with pre‑2013 legislative iterations. It described that historical exercise as unhelpful, stressing that the current enacted text – drawing its own distinctions between “designations” and “names” – must be interpreted in its own context.

The court also addressed, without treating it as determinative, the Court of Justice of the European Union decision in TofuTown (C‑422/16). It noted that the CJEU had precluded the use of “milk” and reserved dairy designations for purely plant-based products in marketing and advertising, even with clarifying plant-based terms, but emphasised that the designations in TofuTown were being used as product names—making it unsafe to infer that “designation” is confined to naming scenarios.

The “clearly descriptive” safe harbour and why Oatly could not use it

Once “designation” was held to extend beyond product names, Oatly’s fall-back was the second limb of Point 5’s proviso: the prohibition does not apply where designations “are clearly used to describe a characteristic quality of the product”. Oatly’s case was that the characteristic quality was plain: the goods are milk-free.

The Supreme Court’s treatment of this proviso is best understood as an insistence on linguistic discipline. The issue was not whether consumers could infer that the products do not contain milk; the mark itself had to make that characteristic plain. The court held that the phrase “POST MILK GENERATION” is, on its face, directed at a cohort of consumers, and that any product-quality meaning is, at best, “oblique and obscure”.

Two supporting reasons sharpened the analysis. First, even if the mark were taken to convey a milk‑free characteristic, the court regarded the message as indeterminate: it does not clearly indicate whether the product contains no milk at all or merely a low milk content, illustrated by an analogy with “POST ALCOHOL GENERATION” and the ambiguity between low‑alcohol and alcohol‑free.

Secondly, the T‑shirt registration, which remained valid, became an interpretive clue. The court reasoned that the mark makes obvious sense on apparel precisely because it communicates identity (a form of consumer self‑description), not a characteristic quality of the physical goods. That supported the conclusion that the mark is not “clearly” descriptive of a characteristic quality of oat-based foods and drinks.

The most practically valuable passage in this part of the judgment is arguably an aside. The Supreme Court considered a hypothetical mark “MILK‑FREE” used for oat-based goods. In its view, this would still be a prohibited “designation” (given the broad meaning), but would be saved by the proviso because it clearly describes a product characteristic: that it contains no milk.

That aside sketches a compliance pathway. It suggests that the regime does not impose an absolute taboo on the word “milk” in relation to non‑dairy goods; rather, it tilts heavily towards permitting only plainly informational “free‑from” usage, while excluding more identity-building or category-borrowing use.

What the judgment changes in practice and what it leaves open

The immediate legal consequence is narrow in form but wide in effect: “POST MILK GENERATION” cannot remain on the register for oat-based foods and drinks because its use is prohibited by Point 5, and section 3(4) makes that prohibition registrability-fatal.

The deeper significance lies in the consolidation of a particular regulatory relationship between trade mark law and sectoral product rules.

First, trade mark clearance in regulated food categories is not merely a question of distinctiveness, descriptiveness, and consumer confusion. Where an enactment reserves category words – here, dairy terms – section 3(4) converts that reserve into a hard barrier to registration. In practical terms, this pushes advisers to treat sectoral labelling constraints as part of the registrability analysis, not merely a post-registration compliance question.

Secondly, the court’s insistence that Point 5 is aimed at competition conditions explains why brand playfulness is not a safe refuge. The hearing officer’s finding of no deception under section 3(3)(b) did not soften the outcome under section 3(4), because consumer understanding is not the core statutory trigger for Point 5’s prohibition.

Thirdly, the “clearly” requirement in the proviso is likely to become the focal point for future drafting choices and disputes. The Supreme Court did not attempt to articulate a general test; instead, it provided concrete negative and positive guidance: slogans framed as generational or identity claims are unlikely to qualify, whereas direct “free‑from” descriptors may do so (subject to the “designation” threshold still being crossed).

Finally, the decision leaves some modern marketing questions unresolved even as it makes the framework stricter. The court used the T‑shirt registration as an interpretive aid, which makes sense in the posture of the case. But the reasoning also highlights how contemporary brand ecosystems blur the line between merchandising and product marketing: a mark can be used on apparel as lifestyle signalling and yet simultaneously function as a marketing device for regulated goods. The judgment does not pursue that complexity because it did not need to, but it is a plausible pressure point for later litigation about what counts as use “in respect of” regulated products.

Articles and content on this site are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. Do not rely solely on this information.