header-logo header-logo

20 February 2026 / Asima Rana
Issue: 8150 / Categories: Opinion , Intellectual property , Consumer , Food law , Marketing , Regulatory
printer mail-detail

‘Milk’ means milk

242981
Branding creativity meets regulatory control: Asima Rana on why Dairy UK v Oatly matters beyond plant-based consumables

The Supreme Court’s resolution of the long-running trade mark dispute Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB [2026] UKSC 4 reinforces the primacy of regulatory law over branding creativity in a highly regulated consumer market. The court unanimously held that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark was invalid for use in relation to oatbased food and drink products, on the basis that its use was prohibited under s 3(4) of the Trade Marks Act 1994. That conclusion turned on the court’s finding that the use of the word ‘milk’ amounted to a prohibited use of a protected dairy designation under assimilated EU Regulation 1308/2013.

While the outcome may not surprise many trade mark practitioners, the significance of the decision lies less in its conclusion than in the court’s reasoning.

The role of section 3(4) in regulated markets

At first glance, the dispute appeared to raise a familiar question about trade mark registrability. In substance

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll