Oatly loses trademark case against British family business Glebe Farm

Huntingdon-based Glebe Farm Foods has won a legal case against Oatly after the Swedish oat milk company took it to court over trademark infringement claims.

The family business was recently taken to court by the multinational oat drink giant, alleging that the name and branding of Glebe Farm’s PureOaty oat milk was too similar to its own brand.

The High Court, in a judgment on 5 August, has dismissed all Oatly’s claims of trade mark infringement and passing off.

Phillip Rayner, owner of Glebe Farm, said he is delighted about the verdict.

“We have had the threat of this court case – which has pitched our challenger brand against Oatly’s multinational business – looming over us 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,” he said.

“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 hearing in June examined wide ranging aspects of alleged relevant intellectual property including choice of language and typefaces, the use of the colour blue and the detail of a coffee cup appearing on the PureOaty pack.

Giving his verdict, Deputy High Court Judge Nicholas Caddick noted that there is 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.

Rayner continued: “Oatly has claimed that this legal action is just standard business practice. However, it was very clear to us 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’.”

“In response to public and industry criticism, Oatly has claimed that it first tried to engage Glebe Farm in ‘constructive conversation’ but in our view a threat of legal action never felt ‘constructive’ and we felt there was no compromise or dialogue offered.”

“It is enormously gratifying that the judge has ruled in our favour, and to see that smaller independent companies can fight back and win.”