Oatly AB - OTLY - Share chat

I was really disappointed to see Oatly were taking Glebe Farms to court - there are petitions circulating, it has not gone down well. Plus there are a plethora of decent Oat mills and barista versions available in every supermarket now. I am personally stopping buying Oatly and will be looking for other up and coming plant-based brands to invest in.

@Cameron made a good point, this is simply another example of IP law being daft. Not a good look but it’s why it happens.

1 Like

Oatly have lost their trademark case against Glebe Farm Foods, makers of PureOaty that @Anders mentioned above.


PureOaty should be taken to court for the design of the packaging. Eesh!


Maybe they were going for the ‘polish off brand corner shop’ look.

Interesting, thanks for that information. I was not aware. Judges comments were fairly clear though.

“It is hard to see how any relevant confusion would arise from the defendant’s use of the sign ‘PureOaty’,” he said.

He concluded: “On the facts of this case, I do not see that there is any risk of injury to the distinctive character of Oatly’s marks.”

There appears to have been nothing to defend from a brand PoV. Does that matter in terms of this being evidence of Oatly defending their trade mark in the future? Just trying to weight up the impact here, it’s definitely negative PR and presumably some cost. But anything else?

Not an IP lawyer but I’m pretty sure that’s fine, I think just by trying they’ve done enough and the courts have clarified that this instance is different enough.

If Nestle were now to create a product called ‘Oaty’ with very similar branding to Oatly then Oatly could still bring that to court. Had this not occurred then Nestle could turn around and say “well PureOaty has existed for years and not once did you challenge that”. Oatly could still win that, but if they haven’t made efforts to defend their mark then my understanding is that it would be harder.

The Claim: "That big company is a bully for enforcing their trademark against the little guys."
Unlike copyright holders, trademark holders must enforce their trademark or risk losing their trademark. A trademark, after all, is designed to distinguish the source of a product or service. If a bunch of people are using the same symbol to market a the same product or service, that defeats the entire purpose of a trademark. So it doesn’t matter who is infringing upon a person/corporation/other legal entity’s trademark — it could be a multibillion dollar corporation or a nine-year-old child — the trademark older absolutely must enforce that trademark.
10 Things Everyone Gets Wrong About Intellectual Property Law

Clearly there has been some negative PR coming out of this, but I don’t really get why, companies have a responsibility to protect their trademarks or risk losing it and we should have faith that courts will come to reasonable conclusions, it seems that’s exactly what’s happened here.


Looks like Oatly lost the copywright case.

Blockquote[quote=“Cameron, post:27, topic:45905, full:true”]
Clearly there has been some negative PR coming out of this, but I don’t really get why, …

I think the why is because laymen (like me) don’t know what you just explained. Combined with the fact that media (social and other) find that outrage drives engagement. You’ve changed my perspective on this.


Any idea why this is still dropping- or any indication of when it may rise again? The IP battle may have created bad press but was necessary on some level…


I would imagine due to the disastrous ER. I think it’s not unlikely Oatly keeps sinking as margins come under pressure, until it’s presumably bought out at a discount and most of the management is jettisoned.