Oatly loses trademark infringement case against UK family farm

Family-run Glebe Farm Foods, based in Cambridgeshire, has defeated Swedish oat milk giant Oatly in court
Family-run Glebe Farm Foods, based in Cambridgeshire, has defeated Swedish oat milk giant Oatly in court

British oat milk producer Glebe Farm has won the legal case brought against it by oat drink giant Oatly for trademark infringement.

Swedish firm Oatly took legal action against family-run Glebe Farm Foods, seeking an injunction to stop the Cambridgeshire-based farm from selling its PureOaty brand.

Oatly, which went public in the United States earlier this year, claimed Glebe Farm's brand was too similar to its own.

But in a judgement passed this week, a judge dismissed all of Oatly’s claims of trade mark infringement and passing off.

Phillip Rayner, owner of Glebe Farm, said the business had the threat of the court case looming over the family for more than a year.

"We have always felt certain that we have done nothing wrong, and we were determined to fight Oatly’s claims that our brands were similar - something that is now proven to be wrong.

“You only need to look at the two products and packaging side by side to appreciate how different these brands are, and how unnecessary this legal action was."

The farm had received support from around the world, including 130,000 signatures on a change.org petition, and many comments online had described the case as a David and Goliath battle.

Mr Rayner said Oatly had claimed that the legal action was just standard business practice, but he said it was 'very clear' to that this was not the case.

"We decided it was time to stand up to this behaviour, and that in our view ‘corporate might does not make right'," he said.

The court hearing occurred on 9 and 10 June 2021 and examined wide ranging aspects of alleged relevant intellectual property.

This included choice of language and typefaces, the use of the colour blue and the detail of a coffee cup appearing on the PureOaty pack.

Glebe Farm’s counsel took time to question the originality of Oatly’s ‘wackaging’ and expressed surprise at the paucity of evidence Oatly brought of any consumer confusion between the brands before heading to court.

Ultimately the judge found that there was no likelihood of confusion between the PureOaty name and look of the carton, and any of the Oatly trade marks.

Further, the judge ruled against Oatly’s allegation that Glebe Farm intended to gain some unfair advantage, ruling that there was no intention as attributed by Oatly.