Oatly loses trademark battle against British farm over oat milk
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
How is Glebe Farm Foods [0], a small business, a threat to Oatly?
If Oatly really cared about sustainability then they'd congratulate a small producer joining the oat drinks industry... also an opportunity to generate positive PR, i.e. not doing business as usual etc.
This stunt just turned me off their brand.
I think consumers are clever enough to differentiate between Oatly and PureOaty.
[0] https://www.glebefarmfoods.co.uk/about-us/
Edit: clarity.
Would be interesting to know what they've actually trademarked? That no other brand can use a shade of blue on their packaging when selling oat drinks?
I can understand if Glebe Farms called their product Oaty, but they called it PureOaty - doesn't even start with the same letter and their packaging looks different, not as polished as Oatly's packaging.
Edit: In the BBC article they claimed the 'y' is the offender. But oaty is an adjective, hence the name PureOaty to create a product name.
Oatly clearly agrees, too. The judge declared their brand/trade dress safe.
In the UK the only reasonable way that it might be conceived that Oatly would lose their many trade marks is acquiescence - they have to give way to a registered trade mark for a period of five years for that to occur. Degeneration (aka genericisation) is laughable far from a possibility in this case. I think https://www.ipo.gov.uk/t-challenge-decision-results/o32919.p... discusses most of the pertinent precedents.
In USA, for example in Abraham v. Alpha Chi Omega the trademark holders (AXO) had failed to sue for 50 years, they still came away with a result that Abraham could only use licensed decals on his paddles henceforth.
Register, pay your fees, ask people to acknowledge your mark, ... no need to be a sue-happy jerk. Of course nearly all the advice you find is from IP law firms saying you need to sue everyone who even looks at your trade marks sideways. Any caselaw refs that show I'm wrong gratefully received.
This represents my personal opinion, unrelated to my employment and is not legal advice.
the amount of extremely lazy and quite incorrect comments on HN has gone way up during the pandemic (or at least become much more noticable).
I wouldn't. It took me a double take to notice the missing l, and that's with your sentence priming me to see a difference. In the store I might ponder on why the pure version existed.
Seeing them both in a store I'd have expected PureOatly was the unflavored version.
Anyway, thanks for your perspective. Don't you think the packaging is quite different though?
Oatly is quite bold, uses a unique style and using 'Original' on their packaging.
PureOatly packaging looks quite generic - a 'cheaper' design quality so to speak.
Different color, different font, different layout, there's literally no copying of Oatly's design other than the y at the end of the word Oat (which, as a common word, isn't brand able on it's own).
Keep in mind the designs can change. Right now I think with these two branding I would think Oatly was a generic descriptor.
Oatly's overly litigious nature makes complete sense based on their ownership (from das Wiki):
"Oatly is now part-owned by The Blackstone Group (7%), Verlinvest, China Resources, Industrifonden, Östersjöstiftelsen, and the employees.[16][17][18] The group also included celebrities such as Oprah Winfrey and Jay-Z, as well as Starbucks founder Howard Schultz.[19]"
Their ice cream alternative is pretty good too.
For starters - PureOaty sounds nothing like Oatly. Secondly, it's made on minuscule scale at one farm from what I can make out.
but yeah Oaty vs Oatly might have been reasonable but PureOaty is quite the stretch
If the defendants had been selling their product with the exact same name, or ripping off their logo directly, then you have a point.
This is the UK, where digital reproductions of public domain documents do get a copyright. While I agree they overstep here (especially that a regular customer would see the two products differently), IP laws in UK are much more sensitive with these issues.
I always felt their branding and overall approach was on point which makes this quite out character and a total dick move on their part.
That said, I still buy their products regularly. And I'm proud they started in my home town.
Oldy but goody: https://www.kuechenstud.io/kuechenradio/episode/kr_121-milch...
Edit: obviously we shouldn't subsidize industrial farming and its carbon emissions and instead charge for these negative externalities. We are all paying for this cheap milk consumption with our climate.
TL;DR If bacon costs the same as cheese, might as well get bacon.
It's interesting that fresh, pasteurised cow's milk is cheaper than a carton of oat milk which is approximately 90% water + oats and thickeners. Almond milk is even worse: approximately 95-97% water + 2-3% almonds and thickeners.
But yes, other than a good soy milk, most of plant-based milks are just empty calories.
I'm hopeful that eventually the price of oat milk will approach the cost of its inputs, but it might take a while.
It is so bizarre this alternative milk that goes around. I am totally onboard with finding an alternative to save cows from inhumane practice, however, very little of the alternative milk that is out there is anywhere near as healthy as normal milk.
Meanwhile anyone can produce any type of alternative milk and people think they are buying health food.
That original headline is also slightly misleading, since it's really "Glebe Farm Foods", which is a manufacturer as well as a grower. It's not an enormous corporation; I saw an estimate of its revenue at $7 million.
But this headline has already prompted one remark that suggested this was about the "milk" part. It's not. It's one manufacturer suing another over the name of their oat milk.
I do get oat milk once a week from my milkman so no idea what brand it is and it comes it a glass bottle that's collected the week after so pretty much zero waste.
My second thought is "What nuance is the news story missing?"
I wonder if a bit of Gell-Mann Amnesia[1] is in play for my first reaction
"Milk" is a fine term for any opaque liquid, white-ish in color. Especially when it substitutes well for cow's milk.
Coconut milk, rice milk, almond milk, oat milk, and soy milk are well established at this point.
Adding this to your coffee is probably a bad idea. I'm going to start a campaign to rename it Broth of Magnesia to avoid such mishaps.
I would wager a sizeable percentage of people don’t know that dairy milk comes out of a tit.
Restricting the use of the word milk to mammal products is silly imo. From a consumer standpoint it makes sense to call milk alternatives <substitute> milk (e.g., soy milk, oat milk, etc.) to make it clear to the consumer that they can use it as an alternative to regular cow milk.
What’s next, telling us we can’t milk chocolate?