On 11 February 2026, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in the long-running Dairy UK v Oatly AB case, unanimously dismissing Oatly’s appeal and finding that Oatly’s trade mark 'Post Milk Generation' was invalid. Michael Skrein, partner, and Eva Burkhart, trainee at law firm Reed Smith, examine how the judgement will influence branding and marketing in the plant-based sector moving forward.

Unfamiliar with the Dairy UK v Oatly AB case? Read about it here.

The legal framework – a harsh decision?

The Dairy UK v Oatly AB case posed two questions:

1. Does 'Post Milk Generation' use the term 'milk' as a 'designation' within the meaning of the relevant Regulation?

2. Is the term 'Post Milk Generation,' when used in relation to oat-based food and drink, clearly being used to describe a characteristic quality of those products?

Question one is a binary question. There either is or is not a 'designation'. The Supreme Court took what might be thought a controversial view that the term 'milk' was used as a designation. It may have been considered that Oatly’s case would be saved by the use of the word 'Post,' signalling distance from dairy rather than an attempt to appropriate it. However, the Supreme Court held that the mark does not clearly describe a characteristic quality of oat-based food and drink products, and therefore falls outside the proviso.

It could also be considered that the word 'Post' actually is, rather than is not, used to describe a characteristic quality of the products – 'Post' meaning that the product is from a world that has moved on from milk. However, the Supreme Court found that the word 'Generation' undermines that argument, because the trade mark is not 'clearly' describing any characteristic of the contested products.

The Court judged that on its face, it is focused on describing the intended consumers (for example, a younger 'post-milk generation'), rather than the characteristic quality of the goods themselves.

One might wonder whether the Supreme Court would have ruled differently if the word 'Generation' had not been used. It's likely it would not have, due to the binary decision but also because the Court took the view – perhaps a little harshly – that the term did not make clear whether the product is entirely free of milk, or only that the milk content is low.

Implications for the plant-based sector

At first glance, the judgment appears uncompromising: if a product is not derived from animal milk, it cannot be marketed using reserved dairy designations such as 'milk' or 'cheese'. The Court made clear that the purpose of the regulation is to maintain 'fair conditions of competition,' not merely to prevent consumer deception. Even if consumers understand that oat-based products are not dairy, that understanding does not escape the statutory restriction.

However, the decision should not be seen as necessarily requiring a wholesale rebrand across the plant-based sector. The prohibition on using 'milk' as the product name for plant-based drinks is not new. UK plant-based brands have long marketed their products as 'oat drink' or 'almond drink' in response to the dairy designation rules, as strictly interpreted in the EU case of TofuTown. The Supreme Court has not changed that baseline. Instead, it has confirmed that the restriction extends beyond product names and may capture branding and slogans where dairy terminology is used 'in respect of' the goods.

Crucially, the Court’s reasoning preserves an important safety valve: the proviso allowing designations that are 'clearly used to describe a characteristic quality of the product'. The Court expressly indicated that a hypothetical mark such as 'Milk-free' would be caught by the prohibition at first glance, but would be saved because it clearly describes a product characteristic. The operative distinction is therefore one of clarity. Descriptive, product-focused statements, such as 'milk-free,' 'dairy-free' or 'plant-based alternative to milk,' are likely to remain viable.

What is in peril, however, is more expressive use: metaphorical, cultural or generational messaging that invokes dairy terms without clearly describing the product (such as 'Milk Reimagined', 'Milk 2.0,' 'Goodbye Milk,' and 'Milk Break'.

Strategic changes

For manufacturers, ingredient suppliers, co-packers and brand owners, the practical implications are strategic rather than existential. For instance, trade mark portfolios (registered and pending) incorporating dairy terms for plant-based goods may now require reassessment, while earlier, compliance-led brand development, with legal review at concept stage, will further reduce vulnerability.

Additionally, clear descriptive positioning is likely to be more resilient than evocative branding, given the emphasis on clarity, and retailers – especially in own-label – may adopt a more conservative approach, pushing compliance expectations further down the supply chain.

The sector may also see transactional scrutiny increase in investment, M&A and due diligence, particularly where valuation is linked to trade mark strength. Finally, from an export perspective, brands should remember to align these strategies across jurisdictions, noting that the UK position reflects retained EU law.

Commercial imperatives and next steps

The judgment also underscores a wider competitive dynamic. By reserving certain category terms to dairy producers, the regulatory framework effectively restricts access to familiar food vocabulary. Plant-based brands may therefore need to communicate substitution and functionality without using the most immediately recognisable 'shorthand,' which may increase the cost of consumer education. It will be a matter of taking care.

The overall impact for the plant-based sector is real but not catastrophic. The judgment does not mandate wholesale rebranding. Rather, it clarifies that dairy terminology is strictly regulated and that non-literal or expressive use will be vulnerable unless it clearly describes a characteristic of the product. The commercial imperative is therefore to innovate, differentiate and build brand equity within those parameters.