Share this article:
Back to News & insights

The ‘Milk’ ban: A sour decision for Oatly, and a wake-up call for plant-based food brands

•

By Rachel Hearson, Senior Associate

As of yesterday, 11 February 2026, Oatly and other plant-based brand owners can no longer use the word ‘milk’ (or other dairy related terms) in relation to plant-based products in the UK.

What happened?

In 2021, Oatly tried to register the mark POST MILK GENERATION for various goods and services, including plant-based drinks. Dairy UK, a leading representative for British dairy farmers, successfully objected to its registration. Yesterday, the UK’s Supreme Court agreed with Dairy UK, and unanimously concluded that Oatly could not use the phrase because it unlawfully includes the word ‘milk’, which is reserved for animal-derived dairy products under retained EU law (Regulation (EU) No. 1308/2013).

In its appeal before the Supreme Court, Oatly argued that the mark clearly signalled its products were not dairy and should fall within an exception allowing descriptive terms. The Court disagreed, finding the phrase referred to a demographic concept (“a generation after milk”), not a product characteristic, so the dairy designation rules still applied.

Why this matters for plant-based brand owners?

Dairy industry groups see the decision as protecting consumers and traditional long-established dairy terms. Plant-based brands are likely to see it as a constraint on creative and sustainability-led marketing. Either way, the decision has significant practical implications:

  • Avoid protected dairy terms like “milk” and “cheese” in product names, trade marks, and slogans for plant-based foods and drinks. Brand names and language should be carefully chosen, taking into account relevant trade mark law and regulatory definitions, to ensure compliance.
  • Don’t rely on consumer understanding alone, as implied dairy associations can still trigger objections.
  • Review and, if necessary, revise existing product naming and labelling, replacing protected terms with compliant alternatives like ‘oat drink’.
  • Use of words such as ‘milk-free’ or ‘dairy-alternative’ is permitted, provided they are used as a descriptor to denote a characteristic of the product.
  • Non-food goods like merchandise may be treated differently, as the Court accepted the use of POST MILK GENERATION on clothing.
  • Expect UKIPO objections to trade mark applications using dairy terms for plant-based alternatives.

What next?

The EU is expected to tighten rules further around meat-style terminology for plant-based products in the coming years, while the UK has not (yet) followed suit. That means increasing divergence, and more country-by-country brand strategy.

The decision also highlights ongoing consistency questions: if “milk” is restricted, why are terms like “peanut butter” and “coconut milk” still allowed? Well, they fall within specific statutory exceptions. Still, it shows how nuanced and fragmented food naming law has become.

Plant-based brands will need to build compliance checks into naming and campaign strategy earlier than ever. Seek advice from your HLK trade mark attorney or solicitor early!

Do you think decisions like this improve consumer clarity, or restrict fair competition and innovation?

The UK’s Supreme Court full decision can be found at Dairy UK Ltd (Respondent) v Oatly AB (Appellant).

Need assistance?

This is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Should you require advice on this or any other topic then please contact hlk@hlk-ip.com or your usual HLK advisor.