Oatly banned from using word ‘milk’ to label vegan drinks
www.independent.co.uk
The UK’s highest court has sided with the dairy industry in the long-running row
  • Cousin Mose@lemmy.hogru.chEnglish
    185·
    3 days ago

    People who impregnate (rape) and abuse cows for their milk are so insecure about their product that they need to ban competition from using its word. It’s really pathetic to see.

  • definitemaybe@lemmy.caEnglish
    91·
    3 days ago

    The title of the article is misleading. The ruling was on the use of “Post Milk Generation” as a trade mark for use in their advertising and on their products. It has nothing to do with using “milk” to describe their drinks.

    Sadly, every comment in this thread seems to be responding to the title at face value, not the actual court case.

    I think it’s a bit silly to prevent the trademark of that slogan, but I’m guessing that’s because I’m missing something in the nuance of what a trade mark is, legally, in the UK?

    Speculating here with an example of a trademark I know a little bit about: “Grill & Chill” was trademarked by DQ in several jurisdictions. (Aside: and they used that trademark to threaten the “Chill & Grill” restaurant to change its name, despite that use clearly predating DQ’s use of the name by decades, but I digress…) I suppose that’s allowed because “grilling” is directly related to the “trade” of DQ’s services, but something ephemeral like “being a post milk person” is only indirectly related to their “trade” of making non-dairy beverages?

    I suppose that makes sense. But still silly, imho.

    • BrikoX@lemmy.zipOPMEnglish
      1·
      3 days ago

      Its legal team contended that the trademark explicitly conveyed the absence of dairy milk in its offerings.

      Conversely, lawyers for Dairy UK argued that the phrase failed to clarify the product’s milk-free nature, instead referring to a specific demographic of consumers.

      You can’t not link it to “milk” directly as that was part of the legal argument.

      • definitemaybe@lemmy.caEnglish
        5·
        3 days ago

        ???

        I don’t understand what you’re trying to say.

        The Supreme Court decision was banning their use of the trademarked phrase. As far as I can tell, that’s it. If you can find something in there that contradicts that, I’m all ears. But nothing in the linked article, aside from the terrible headline, says anything about a court ruling on the term “oat milk”.

        Unless I missed something, this has no far-reaching consequences and is mostly a nothing burger.

  • podian@piefed.socialEnglish
    6·
    3 days ago

    I wonder if Westeros would have ruled against the name “Milk of the poppy.” No? The UK officially has worse takes on law than The Seven Fucking Kingdoms.

    Capitalism lol

  • reddig33@lemmy.worldEnglish
    41·
    3 days ago

    Next up, no more hot dogs that don’t contain dog. No hamburgers that don’t contain ham.

    • jol@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
      4·
      3 days ago

      It’s only called Hamburger if it comes from the small town of Hamburg, Germany. Otherwise you must call it reformed organ patty. Ti’s the law.

  • DancingBear@midwest.socialEnglish
    1·
    2 days ago

    Is this about oat milk, the thing we all know isn’t goat milk or soy milk or camel milk or cow milk or almond milk or any other thing than oat milk?

  • Katana314@lemmy.worldEnglish
    2·
    3 days ago

    Man, I know it’s typical and passé to pass on things with complex names, but it may have been a poor move. Imagine if people stayed away from “dihydrogen monoxide” bottles because they sound like chemically treated poison.

    • kata1yst@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      17·
      3 days ago

      Almond milk has been called ‘milk’ since it was first written about in the 13th century.

      There is no logical reason people need the distinction made clearer 800 years later.

      • demeritum@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
        1·
        3 days ago

        People kinda forgot that medieval people couldnt just constantly rely on the lactate-carnist duploly and had several alternatives now considered “trendy” “chemical” products.

        • kata1yst@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          9·
          3 days ago

          What do you think changed?

          From my perspective, people made this and used this in their own homes. It was in cookbooks. Being able to buy it in a store doesn’t change the context of 800+ years of history.

            • kata1yst@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              10·
              3 days ago

              But in what way does that change the meaning of the established linguistics? That’s the part I’m struggling to grasp. I understand the commercial milk producers wanting to muddy the waters from a competitive perspective, but why should you or I want almond milk, or other plant based milks, called something not ‘milk’?

                • kata1yst@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                  31·
                  3 days ago

                  Hmm. I’m afraid this is where we’re going to disagree. I don’t agree milk needs a legal definition. I don’t agree that consumers need protection from the word ‘milk’ being attached to other products, especially plant based milks that are generally clearly labeled and have hundreds or more years of context in our language.

                  Hell. There’s ‘human milk’, ‘goat milk’, ‘yak milk’, etc.

                  If something needs to change, it should be that we need to now call it ‘cow milk’ and truly protect the consumer from confusion.

            • jol@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
              1·
              3 days ago

              Unless you’re drinking milk from the cow’s tit, your milk is very mucg an industrial product to make it shelf stable and consistent. People have a totally wrong idea of what real milk feels or tastes like or what’s involved in its production. At least oat milk is literally just filtered porridge you can make at home.

    • OmegaMouse@pawb.socialEnglish
      171·
      3 days ago

      Peanut butter isn’t butter, but it’s called that because enough people agreed to call it so. It’s a useful way to referring to something that has similar properties. Likewise, if I ask for a coffee I’ll continue to ask for oat milk and not ‘oat drink’ as the latter sounds stupid.