Shorter Reads

Oatly loses trademark battle over oat milk name

Plant milk manufacturer, Oatly, recently brought legal action against Glebe Farm Foods, claiming its product PureOaty took “unfair advantage” of their own drink. The High Court  ruled in favour of the farm saying there was no “risk of injury to the distinctive character” of the Oatly brand.

1 minute read

Published 6 August 2021

Authors

Share

Key information

  • Specialisms
  • Business
  • Dispute Resolution
  • Services
  • Intellectual property disputes

Plant milk manufacturer, Oatly, recently brought legal action against Glebe Farm Foods, claiming its product PureOaty took “unfair advantage” of their own drink. The High Court  ruled in favour of the farm saying there was no “risk of injury to the distinctive character” of the Oatly brand.

Collyer Bristow’s Head of Head of Intellectual Property and Data Protection, Patrick Wheeler, comments:

This case highlights one of the risks of choosing a trade mark that is quite descriptive of the product to which it relates. Other traders are likely to want to use the descriptive name of the product in ways that are likely to come close to the registered trade mark. As a general rule, it is important to take action to stop others using identical or similar marks on identical or similar products, in order to preserve the value and validity of the registered trade mark. However, in some situations the trade mark owner will have a difficult choice to make. Should they take action to try to stop all similar uses, in an attempt to preserve some exclusivity for the registered mark, and risk losing (as here), or should they let most similar uses go, and risk an argument in the future that their registered mark has become generic, in which case the registration will be cancelled?

There is also a public relations danger. It is easy for commentators to build a “David and Goliath” story around efforts by a trade mark owner to protect its registered rights, so there is a risk of losing the PR war even if the trade mark battle may be won. This can have a potentially disastrous impact on product sales and the value of the brand. Those of us who remember the large chain of jewellers operating under the “Ratners” brand will never forget how an unguarded comment by the owner, about the quality of the products which he sold, became a PR disaster leading to the destruction of the brand almost overnight.

These practical and commercial factors need to be carefully considered together with the legal issues whenever owners of intellectual property right wish to take action to stop what they regard as an infringement of their rights. All of these issues should be discussed in detail with their legal advisers prior to deciding on the correct strategy in each situation.

Message us on WhatsApp

Related latest updates PREV NEXT

Related content

Arrow Back to Insights

Shorter Reads

Oatly loses trademark battle over oat milk name

Plant milk manufacturer, Oatly, recently brought legal action against Glebe Farm Foods, claiming its product PureOaty took “unfair advantage” of their own drink. The High Court  ruled in favour of the farm saying there was no “risk of injury to the distinctive character” of the Oatly brand.

Published 6 August 2021

Associated sectors / services

Authors

Plant milk manufacturer, Oatly, recently brought legal action against Glebe Farm Foods, claiming its product PureOaty took “unfair advantage” of their own drink. The High Court  ruled in favour of the farm saying there was no “risk of injury to the distinctive character” of the Oatly brand.

Collyer Bristow’s Head of Head of Intellectual Property and Data Protection, Patrick Wheeler, comments:

This case highlights one of the risks of choosing a trade mark that is quite descriptive of the product to which it relates. Other traders are likely to want to use the descriptive name of the product in ways that are likely to come close to the registered trade mark. As a general rule, it is important to take action to stop others using identical or similar marks on identical or similar products, in order to preserve the value and validity of the registered trade mark. However, in some situations the trade mark owner will have a difficult choice to make. Should they take action to try to stop all similar uses, in an attempt to preserve some exclusivity for the registered mark, and risk losing (as here), or should they let most similar uses go, and risk an argument in the future that their registered mark has become generic, in which case the registration will be cancelled?

There is also a public relations danger. It is easy for commentators to build a “David and Goliath” story around efforts by a trade mark owner to protect its registered rights, so there is a risk of losing the PR war even if the trade mark battle may be won. This can have a potentially disastrous impact on product sales and the value of the brand. Those of us who remember the large chain of jewellers operating under the “Ratners” brand will never forget how an unguarded comment by the owner, about the quality of the products which he sold, became a PR disaster leading to the destruction of the brand almost overnight.

These practical and commercial factors need to be carefully considered together with the legal issues whenever owners of intellectual property right wish to take action to stop what they regard as an infringement of their rights. All of these issues should be discussed in detail with their legal advisers prior to deciding on the correct strategy in each situation.

Associated sectors / services

Authors

Need some more information? Make an enquiry below.

    Subscribe

    Please add your details and your areas of interest below

    Specialist sectors:

    Legal services:

    Other information:

    Jurisdictions of interest to you (other than UK):

    Article contributor

    Enjoy reading our articles? why not subscribe to notifications so you’ll never miss one?

    Subscribe to our articles

    Message us on WhatsApp (no calls)

    Please note that Collyer Bristow provides this service during office hours for general information and enquiries only and that no legal or other professional advice will be provided over the WhatsApp platform. Please also note that if you choose to use this platform your personal data is likely to be processed outside the UK and EEA, including in the US. Appropriate legal or other professional opinion should be taken before taking or omitting to take any action in respect of any specific problem. Collyer Bristow LLP accepts no liability for any loss or damage which may arise from reliance on information provided. All information will be deleted immediately upon completion of a conversation.

    I accept Close

    Close
    Scroll up
    ExpandNeed some help?Toggle

    Get in touch

    Get in touch using our form below.