Home United Kingdom Alt-milk maker Oatly loses trademark case against family-scramble UK firm

Alt-milk maker Oatly loses trademark case against family-scramble UK firm

Alt-milk maker Oatly loses trademark case against family-scramble UK firm

A family-scramble company sued by Oatly for alleged trademark infringement has obtained a apt fight against the multimillion-pound firm.

The Swedish oat milk company Oatly brought apt stream against Glebe Farm Meals, a Cambridgeshire-basically based company that specialises in producing gluten-free oats, accusing them of making an are trying to consume “unfair advantage” of Oatly’s trademarks with their oat drink known as PureOaty.

Early Newspaper

Glebe Farm Meals, scramble by the brother and sister Philip and Rebecca Rayner, denied the claims and in a judgment on Thursday, Capture Nicholas Caddick QC dominated in favour of the siblings.

For the length of a two-day hearing in June, the high court in London heard that the farming company launched an oat milk in 2019 known as Oat Drink, sooner than launching the rebranded PureOaty in 2020.

The alt-milk maker Oatly’s attorneys argued that Glebe Farm Meals had infringed 5 of their firm’s trademarks with the PureOaty title and the drink’s packaging, to boot to “passing off” their product as Oatly’s.

Capture Caddick discovered there had been similarities between the preliminary PureOaty packaging and the Oatly packaging, including using the color blue and using an irregular font for the product title

On the opposite hand, the settle talked about the similarities had been “at an extraordinarily overall stage”.

Oatly’s attorneys had additionally argued that possibilities might possibly well very neatly be at a loss for phrases into believing that PureOaty used to be a range of Oatly product, but had no longer produced any proof.

Capture Caddick talked about: “It’s hard to seem at how any relevant confusion would come up from the defendant’s use of the signal PureOaty. Notably, using ‘Pure’ as a prefix to the observe ‘Oaty’ and the look of the carton as a total seem to me to preclude any likelihood of the PureOaty product being considered as some blueprint of sub-mark of Oatly.”

The court heard that Oatly had equipped bigger than 38m of their “barista model” oat milk, and bigger than 13m of varied kinds.

Capture Caddick persevered: “On the facts of this case, I ticket no longer observe that there is any anguish of injury to the distinctive personality of Oatly’s marks.

“If Oatly loses sales, then it appears to be like to me that that is at anguish of be the implications of there being a rival oat drink product on the market and no longer for the reason that excellent looks of its mark as a badge of starting set has been whatsoever diminished by the defendant’s use of the PureOaty signal.”

He concluded: “There might be a barely low or, at simplest, very modest stage of similarity between the signal and the marks and that similarity is as a result of the presence in each the signal and the ticket of the letters ‘oat’ that are descriptive of the relevant merchandise.”

After the ruling, Philip Rayner talked about: “We possess had the specter of this court case – which has pitched our challenger mark against Oatly’s multinational enterprise – looming over us for bigger than a year.

“We possess steadily felt obvious that we now possess performed nothing infamous, and we had been obvious to fight Oatly’s claims that our manufacturers had been equal – something that is now confirmed to be infamous.

“You simplest ought to question on the two merchandise and packaging aspect by aspect to like how assorted these manufacturers are, and the design unnecessary this apt stream used to be.

“It’s tremendously gratifying that the settle has dominated in our favour, and to seem at that smaller self reliant companies can fight aid and settle.”

Oatly has talked about that is no longer going to attraction against the judgment.

Guardian enterprise electronic mail signal-up

Erica Wigge, an Oatly PR manager, talked about: “While to some this might possibly possibly well presumably be considered as vindication for itsy-bitsy oat drink companies over huge oat drink companies, we in actuality never seen it that design.

“For us, this case has steadily been about holding our trademark … If we had been to let one company cross because they, like Glebe Farm, seem like one of the excellent guys, that can possibly well fair plug away the door launch for the atrocious ones.

“Reality is, we like all oat drink companies and never brought this case to harm Glebe Farm.

“Actually, we desire them to thrive and aid elevate merchandise into the realm that are excellent for the planet.

“We appropriate judge they might possibly well fair easy ticket so of their very absorb odd remark, appropriate like we ticket.”

Alt-milk maker Oatly loses trademark case against family-scramble UK firm – The Guardian