UK Supreme Court Decision: Oat Milk Cannot Be Labeled as Milk

In a notable legal development in the UK, the country’s highest court has rendered a definitive ruling unfavorable to Swedish beverage company Oatly in an ongoing dispute regarding plant-based branding. This ruling has come after years of contention with the dairy sector, centering on whether oat-derived products can appropriately use the term “milk”in their marketing and trademarks.

On Wednesday, the UK Supreme Court delivered a unanimous verdict, effectively prohibiting Oatly from trademarking or utilizing the phrase “Post Milk Generation.” This conclusion marks the end of a lengthy legal saga that has traversed multiple levels of the judicial system.

Understanding the Legal Landscape: Oatly’s Trademark Battle

Laurie Bray, a senior associate and trademark attorney with Withers & Rogers, remarked, “It has taken the highest court in the land to decide once and for all whether a plant-based milk alternative can be branded as ‘milk’ and marketed as such.” The ruling contradicted Oatly’s expectations and aspirations.

Current legal frameworks dictate that certain product descriptors can only apply to their originative sources; in this instance, “milk”is designated specifically for animal-derived products within the dairy industry.

Oatly originally sought trademark protection for “Post Milk Generation” in 2019, with approval granted in 2021. The company claimed that using “milk”in their trademark did not contravene existing regulations, provided the term was not utilized in a descriptive manner.

The UK Supreme Court has ruled that oat milk can no longer be called milk pic.twitter.com/c851ddlMot

— dexerto (@dexerto) February 11, 2026

However, this argument was dismissed in 2023 after Dairy UK raised an objection, leading the Intellectual Property Office to classify the term as “deceptive.” Although Oatly initially succeeded in appealing this decision later that year, the Court of Appeal reversed the outcome, prompting escalation to the Supreme Court.

Dairy UK’s chief executive, Judith Bryans, commented on the ruling’s significance, stating, “This ruling is an important decision for the sector as it finally provides clarity on how dairy terms can and cannot be used in branding and marketing.” This decision fosters a more consistent understanding for businesses while ensuring that established dairy terminology maintains its integrity for consumers.

In light of the ruling, Oatly has expressed firm disagreement with the Supreme Court’s decision. Bryan Carroll, the general manager for Oatly UK & Ireland, criticized the outcome, asserting, “This decision creates unnecessary confusion and an uneven playing field for plant-based products that solely benefits Big Dairy.” He voiced concerns over the implications of restricting the trademarking of “Post Milk Generation, ” framing it as a move to limit competition and not in the best interest of consumers.

Carroll affirmed that the company plans to explore ways to promote their “Post Milk Generation” merchandise among their customer base despite the legal setback.

Legal analysts predict that this judgment may have broader ramifications beyond Oatly. The precedent could embolden similar trade organizations across Europe to contest trademarks for plant-based alternatives, as the same regulatory standards apply to dairy-related descriptors like cream, butter, and cheese.

Richard May, a partner at Osborne Clarke, advised, “For plant-based producers, the safer course is to use clearly descriptive alternatives such as ‘oat drink’ or ‘plant-based drink.” He further cautioned that this ruling signals a rigorous stance from UK regulators and courts regarding “category borrowing” across various industries, advising businesses to prepare for increased scrutiny in their branding strategies.

In a related case from 2024, the Ohio Supreme Court humorously ruled that boneless wings could still contain bones, underscoring the complexities of food branding and consumer understanding.

Source & Images