What does Oatly’s ‘milk’ ruling mean for the plant-based category?

Oatly’s ‘Post Milk Generation’ slogan looks to be consigned to history. That’s thanks to a Supreme Court ruling last week, which put an end to long-running battle with dairy UK over the use of the term ‘milk’.

The Supreme Court upheld a Court of Appeal ruling that Oatly was infringing the legal protection of a designation reserved for dairy products by attempting to trademark its slogan. So Oatly won’t be able to trademark ‘Post Milk Generation’ or use it in the public domain – except on its branded T-shirts.

So, what response has the ruling had? What does it mean for the wider alt-milk sector? And who will suffer most?

Oatly argues the decision causes “unnecessary confusion and an uneven playing field for plant-based products that solely benefits big dairy”.

It’s a position shared by others in the sector like Indy Kaur, founder of Plant Futures. She believes the ruling creates needless uncertainty in the plant-based market.

Philip Rayner, MD of Glebe Farm – a former legal adversary of Oatly – says the stance jars with dictionary definitions. He points to Samuel Johnson’s 1773 dictionary definition of milk, which talks of an “emulsion made by contusion of seeds”.

Still, brands will have no choice but to face the ramifications, which go well beyond Oatly’s marketing strategy. Many of the big players, Oatly included, have avoided using ‘milk’ on packaging for several years. However, many others still do so in a variety of materials and resources. That will have to change.

“There is going to be tonnes of packaging that’s just going to go to waste and will have to be redesigned, with all the advertising that goes on around it as well,” says Kaur.

Challenger fears

The worst impacted, Kaur believes, will be challengers who are “not big corporations that [can] absorb costs like this”.

Given smaller brands have typically been the most ground-breaking, the ruling could “stifle innovation”, Kaur says.

She fears the consequences could undermine the UK’s position as a leader in the plant-based category.

And the benefits of the ruling are unclear. It is “policing language rather than helping consumers”, says Kaur, since “people understand how food naming works in everyday life”. As she puts it: “No one thinks a ‘beef tomato’ contains beef.”

Plant-Based Food Alliance CEO Marisa Heath agrees the stance “limits creativity, innovation, and choice”. She asks: “Are we making food in the best interest of consumers or not?”

Heath stresses that plant-based is “not at war” with dairy, and says the two categories should work together “to provide the best products”.

For Oatly, the dairy industry – which is facing falling consumption and rising production – has an ulterior motive behind the legal proceedings.

“The dairy alternatives category is in good growth whilst dairy continues its long-term decline,” says Bryan Carroll, Oatly general manager for UK&I. “So it’s no surprise the dairy industry is using legal systems rather than focusing on its own narrative.”

The view has some support even within dairy: Mossgiel Organic Farm MD Bryce Cunningham wrote on LinkedIn “we’re thinking too small”.

“If dairy wants a profitable and relatable future, we need to stop relying on regulation as a shield and start investing in narrative and stories,” he says. “We should be winning hearts, not just legal cases.”