“Dairy UK Ltd v. Oatly AB”
摘要
In interpreting assimilated law comprising legislation, it is appropriate to apply that modern approach to domestic statutory interpretation albeit that the EU origin of the legislation may be relevant in considering the context and purpose of the provision(s). “Designation” or “designations” in Point 5 of the 2013 Regulation must be read alongside Point 2(a) and (b) where the word “names” is used and it naturally follows that they do not have the same meaning. The terms “designation” or “designations” in Point 5 on their natural meaning, viewed in the context of Annex VII, are referring to their use in respect of a food or drink rather than the naming of it. The designations referred to in Points 1, 2 and 3, including the term “milk”, may not be “used for” any product other than those so referred to. Oat-based food or drink is not referred to in Points 1, 2 and 3 and so the use of the term “milk” in respect of such food or drink is prohibited. The prohibition bites where the designation has been used for a relevant product, and it is not necessary that it has been used as the name of the product. That is a broad meaning which encompasses, but is wider than, and different from, the narrower “name of a product” meaning. This wider meaning is consistent with the purpose of Point 5 which, in respect of milk as a product, is to set out fair conditions of competition. That purpose is distinct from protecting consumers from being deceived. To come within the second limb of the proviso of Point 5, it is necessary that the designation is “clearly” being used to describe a characteristic quality of the product. Here, it was considered that it was far from clear that the trade mark “POST MILK GENERATION” was describing any characteristic of the contested oat-based food and drink products.