There’s No Point Crying Over Spilt Oat Milk – Family-Run Farm Wins Trade Mark Dispute With Oatly

The world’s largest oat milk company, Oatly, has lost its trade mark infringement case against a family-run business, Glebe Farm Foods Limited.

Oatly took legal action against Glebe Farm, claiming that it had passed off its PureOaty gluten-free oat milk as Oatly’s and further, that it had infringed five of its trade marks; three-word marks (OATLY, OATLY and OAT-LY!) and two image marks, for the packaging of two of its products.

Glebe Farms denied all claims and initially also counterclaimed for invalidity of one of Oatly’s trade marks. The invalidity claim was not pursued due to the way that Oatly put its claim at trial and so the issues before the Court were limited to whether Glebe Farm’s PureOaty product infringed any of Oatly’s rights.

During the two-day High Court hearing, the Court heard that Glebe Farm Foods had first started selling their oat milk in 2019, named Oat Drink, and then launched their rebranded product, PureOaty, in 2020.

Oatly alleged that the rebrand had been intended to capitalise on Oatly’s own successes in the oat milk market. Evidence led by Oatly included that a promotional campaign for its products in October 2018 lead to a 71.4% increase in its sales and that its barista product had achieved sales in the UK of £38million.

The High Court’s decision

Whilst the Court found that there were some similarities between the Claimant and Defendant’s branding, it considered those similarities to be at a very general level and that there was no likelihood of confusion caused as a consequence.

In relation to the claims made in respect of the OATLY and PureOat names, the Court noted that the similarities were based on the use of the word ‘OAT’ by both parties but that this was a modest or low level of similarity. In reaching that conclusion, the Court took into account the nature of the goods being sold under each mark and how the similarity between the two marks was largely referable to their common use of a descriptive term.

The decision is not a particularly surprising one – it reaching the conclusion that it did, the Court relied on well-established principles of trade mark law. In addition, it would appear that the Court’s assessment of how the products would be perceived has passed the test of public opinion: when the claim became public, there was backlash on social media against Oatly for having brought the case in the first place, with accusations ranging from hypocrisy to consternation that Oatly had ever considered that either the packaging or the names were similar.