112
Oatly banned from using word ‘milk’ to market plant-based products in UK
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2026
112 points (99.1% liked)
United Kingdom
6503 readers
208 users here now
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
In fairness, its a supreme court ruling after a dairy uk(3rd party) objected to a trademark and its been going on for awhile. So it's not like it was specifically put on the agender by any government or authority.
I'm not sure why "in fairness" applys here? I don't disagree it is a supreme court ruling after dairy UK objected to a trademark. I don't disagree it's been going on for a while.
What I'm disagreeing with is the supreme court not going "fuck off, you petty time wasting freaks".
Because the real world is significantly more complicated than we imagine. Yes, it’s infuriating.
That makes more sense. I interpreted your 'my country' more generally... like actions of government or something co-ordinated.
Still, the supreme court just heard and decided the case. Nor is it a consious decision to do this rather than deal with all the other stuff. I guess they could have refused permission to appeal earlier, but I don't think whatever else going on is a consideration. They'd just look at the case itself. And I think that's the best way about it.
That said, I'm not sure I agree with it either, but I haven't read it in full. Just the guardian article.
I imagine more than a little of my frustration is rooted in me not agreeing. But, I think I would have still been frustrated if the SC had decided the other way, just less so. I think regardless I would have wanted:
But, more than that, these nonces have been noncing for actual decades. How the fuck is "whether oat milk can be called milk" a question we're thinking about for a second time?! "The purpose of a system is what it does" is being thrown around a lot recently, I'm not sure organically. But fuck me if the purpose of our system isn't to protect monied interest and bind the rest of us.
Yeah I can agree with a lot of that, honestly 2008 & so much since has made it pretty clear money's the priority(specific people's money). Well before that really with thatcher's bloody privatising spree, selling off everything.
I just don't think the courts are to blame, parliament & government are to blame for that. And by extension the money lobbying all that, the people who say the problem is immigrants not money.
I'm unfortunately gonna make it worse for you here, its probably 4 times. The supreme court, court of appeals, the high court and the IPO itself. You can read more on the case here.
Honestly brexit fucked up this since we're duplicating work now, previously it'd be the EUIPO not the UKIPO doing this. I remember there being talk of creating a merged system even after bexit but no idea what became of that. They need to fix it up at some point, but either way the courts gonna be spending time doing things like this.