Oat milk isn't milk: Supreme Court upholds ban on drink-maker Oatly using the term “milk” to promote its products
Partner Jim Dennis discusses the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dairy UK v Oatly, and the significant implications the decision will have for plant-based branding and marketing strategies in the UK, in The Telegraph, New Law Journal and World IP Review.
"The Supreme Court has drawn a line in the sand by holding that, under UK law, “milk”, when used to describe a product, means milk secreted by a mammal unless the word is clearly used to describe a characteristic of that product. In reaching that conclusion, the Court closely followed retained EU law governing agricultural product names, leaving little room for creative branding.
"The judgment is a clear reminder to the plant-based dairy alternatives market to take great care in how products such as plant-based milk, cheese and yoghurt are described, so as not to fall foul of the regulations. There is an exemption where the term is used to describe a characteristic quality of the product, for example coconut milk. The main difficulty for POST MILK GENERATION was that it does not describe any characteristic quality of the goods at all, but instead it describes the consumer.
"The judgment will pose a particular problem for Oatly, since part of their marketing strategy has been to compare their products favourably to, and at times disparage, dairy. The fact that Oatly took the case all the way to the Supreme Court shows how commercially important it is for the brand to position itself in this way. The ruling means that, in the UK at least, that approach will now have to be handled with far greater caution."
An extract of Jim’s comments was published in The Telegraph, World IP Review and New Law Journal, 11 February 2026.
