Dairy UK Limited v Oatly AB

Dairy UK Limited v Oatly AB

The appeal was allowed because the term 'designation' in the relevant Regulation includes trade marks, and the use of 'POST MILK GENERATION' for oat-based products is prohibited under Article 78(2) and Annex VII, Part III, point 5, as it contains the designation 'milk' and does not fall within any exception. The High Court judge erred in law by interpreting 'designation' too narrowly and by failing to apply the correct legal test.

Parties
Applicant/appellant: Dairy UK Limited; Proprietor/respondent: Oatly AB
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Trade Mark Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; hearing officer's declaration of invalidity reinstated.
Legal Topics
Trade Mark Invalidity, Deceptive Marks, Regulation of Food Designations, Interpretation of EU Assimilated Law, Marketing Standards for Milk and Milk Products
Intellectual Property Trade Marks Food Law Trade Mark Invalidity Deceptive Marks Regulation of Food Designations Interpretation of EU Assimilated Law Marketing Standards for Milk and Milk Products

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dairy UK Limited

Applicant/appellant

Oatly AB

Proprietor/respondent

Procedural Posture

Trade Mark Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the term 'designation' in Article 78(2) and Annex VII, Part III of Regulation 1308/2013/EU includes trade marks or is limited to generic product descriptions
  2. 2 Whether use of the trade mark 'POST MILK GENERATION' is prohibited for oat-based products under the Regulation
  3. 3 Whether the trade mark falls within the exceptions for traditional usage or characteristic quality under the Regulation

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the term 'designation' in the relevant Regulation includes trade marks, and the use of 'POST MILK GENERATION' for oat-based products is prohibited under Article 78(2) and Annex VII, Part III, point 5, as it contains the designation 'milk' and does not fall within any exception. The High Court judge erred in law by interpreting 'designation' too narrowly and by failing to apply the correct legal test.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; hearing officer's declaration of invalidity reinstated.

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The hearing officer's declaration of invalidity in respect of Classes 29, 30, and 32 is reinstated.