6 ms·

Really disappointed in them. How is Glebe Farm Foods [0], a small business, a threat to Oatly? If Oatly really cared about sustainability then they'd congratu

Really disappointed in them. 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/ https://www.glebefarmfoods.co.uk/about-us/ Edit: clarity.

ajmurmann 5y ago
In essence companies are forced to be litigious about their trademark. If they don't defend them or become generic the trademark is lost. Even if Oatly believes that there is little to no risk in consumers confusing PureOaty, this might become a liability in future lawsuits
- uxcolumbo 5y ago
  Thanks for clarifying, but they have no case here - even the judge agrees. 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.
  - zamalek 5y ago
    > [Article] A spokeswoman for Oatly said the company would not be appealing the decision. Oatly clearly agrees, too. The judge declared their brand/trade dress safe.
- pbhjpbhj 5y ago
  It's just not true though. 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.pdf 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.
- bananapub 5y ago
  that's not the case at all - why do you think it is? did you mix up what country this is in? did you not read the ruling? 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).
Danieru 5y ago
> I think consumers are clever enough to differentiate between Oatly or PureOaty. 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.
- uxcolumbo 5y ago
  Interesting, but what would you expect the unflavoured version to be. Oats have a quite distinct taste. Or do you mean less sweet? 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.
- r00fus 5y ago
  I just looked and I think you'd need to squint really hard to think they were related. 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).
  - Danieru 5y ago
    Again, role playing as me standing in the store trying to decide between these two Oaty miks I would either assume Oatly was a generic term for oat milk, or that the flavored version had a recent package redesign. Keep in mind the designs can change. Right now I think with these two branding I would think Oatly was a generic descriptor.
    - r00fus 5y ago
      The law of it very much takes into account brand design. Just because PureOaty won, doesn't mean they can change packaging and be immune to another suit.
r00fus 5y ago
I used to think I was allergic to oat milk - but apparently was only really allergic to Oatly's vanilla flavor. I did fine with other brands. 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]"
fsckboy 5y ago
the size of Glebe Farms does not matter, if their oaty trademark is "valuable" wrt Oatly, then a large Oatly competitor could buy it.

ajmurmann 5y ago

In essence companies are forced to be litigious about their trademark. If they don't defend them or become generic the trademark is lost. Even if Oatly believes that there is little to no risk in consumers confusing PureOaty, this might become a liability in future lawsuits

uxcolumbo 5y ago
Thanks for clarifying, but they have no case here - even the judge agrees. 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.
- zamalek 5y ago
  > [Article] A spokeswoman for Oatly said the company would not be appealing the decision. Oatly clearly agrees, too. The judge declared their brand/trade dress safe.
pbhjpbhj 5y ago
It's just not true though. 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.pdf 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.
bananapub 5y ago
that's not the case at all - why do you think it is? did you mix up what country this is in? did you not read the ruling? 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).

Danieru 5y ago

> I think consumers are clever enough to differentiate between Oatly or PureOaty. 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.

uxcolumbo 5y ago
Interesting, but what would you expect the unflavoured version to be. Oats have a quite distinct taste. Or do you mean less sweet? 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.
r00fus 5y ago
I just looked and I think you'd need to squint really hard to think they were related. 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).
- Danieru 5y ago
  Again, role playing as me standing in the store trying to decide between these two Oaty miks I would either assume Oatly was a generic term for oat milk, or that the flavored version had a recent package redesign. Keep in mind the designs can change. Right now I think with these two branding I would think Oatly was a generic descriptor.
  - r00fus 5y ago
    The law of it very much takes into account brand design. Just because PureOaty won, doesn't mean they can change packaging and be immune to another suit.

r00fus 5y ago

I used to think I was allergic to oat milk - but apparently was only really allergic to Oatly's vanilla flavor. I did fine with other brands. 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]"

fsckboy 5y ago

the size of Glebe Farms does not matter, if their oaty trademark is "valuable" wrt Oatly, then a large Oatly competitor could buy it.