- cross-posted to:
- news@hexbear.net
- cross-posted to:
- news@hexbear.net
You must log in or # to comment.
The dairy industry is losing market share at an accelerated rate. I’m sure this will fix it.
So stupid.
yeah, it feels kinda petty on behalf of the dairy people tbh
Uh oh, better ban the term “coconut milk” too
Peanut butter too. Someone could get confused!
And butterflies obviously need to be renamed to nondairyflies
Here in the Ger of Many, you can buy scouring agents which are branded as “scouring milk” (Scheuermilch), but oat milk is where we draw the line, apparently.
On Wednesday the supreme court unanimously ruled that Oatly can no longer trademark, or use, the slogan “Post Milk Generation”.
This is even dumber when you realise Oatly is explicitly prompting themselves as not-milk.
That doesn’t stop them from calling the product “oat milk” though does it?
You haven’t been able to do that since 2017, the European Court of Justice said so.
They can’t be called milk, but are under “dairy” (lacteos) on the supermarket. You can’t make this shit up.
https://www.carrefour.es/supermercado/la-despensa/lacteos/bebida-vegetal-almendra/F-12d4Z1acc/c
This, this is what my country thinks is valuable to be doing right now? Not all the nonces that may or may not be being blackmailed by hostile powers? But that oat milk is called milk?
It’s a stupid decision but I don’t think the people in charge of this are the same people investigating blackmail by foreign powers.
Makes about as much sense as the people who say ‘why do we bother researching space when we have problems here on earth?’
I don’t think the people in charge of this are the same people investigating blackmail by foreign powers.
The supreme court?
they’d just hear the case, not investigate. Plus it’d have to go through the lower courts first and some of that might just be a inquiry before convictions sadly :(
I guess there is a massive backlog of cases, but I think it’s fair to hear this one.
You think it’s fair to hear corporate lobbying on the use of the word ‘milk’ in reference to a product that has existed since the early 1990s without confusion? Despite massive backlogs being such a national issue that prisoners are being released early, jury trials are being scrapped, and the current government campaigned on it…
Going through multiple courts, using up multiple clerks, lawyers, and judge’s time?
And that’s fair?
And now this non-milk milk, which every layperson refers to as milk, can no longer be labeled milk, despite everyone likely to continue calling it milk.
That is a fair use of limited court time and salaries?
Yeah, I still think it should be heard. I think the decision may be off, and it probably should have stopped at the CA but if it was granted permission to appeal go right ahead.
Most of the issues there I think are due to massive underfunding, cuts and bad management. Or similar issues in other adjacent sectors, like prison management, cps and policing.
I don’t think because they’ve been pushed into that situation they should just stop doing they’re normal functions for other areas of law. Trademarks out of all IP I think are nessisary both from a business and consumer protection prespective. And the courts cannot decided weather to hear a case or not based on who brought it, lobbyers or no. Although yes the decision I’m not keen on and it probably should have been decided earlier.
If they want to use milk in trademarks there should be a change to the legislation on what trademarks are prohibited and what ‘milk’ as a designation mean. It doesn’t prevent people calling it milk just blocked the use of the trademark, notes how trademark law interprets milk as a designation and how the trademark in question is interpreted.
In fairness, its a supreme court ruling after a dairy uk(3rd party) objected to a trademark and its been going on for awhile. So it’s not like it was specifically put on the agender by any government or authority.
I’m not sure why “in fairness” applys here? I don’t disagree it is a supreme court ruling after dairy UK objected to a trademark. I don’t disagree it’s been going on for a while.
What I’m disagreeing with is the supreme court not going “fuck off, you petty time wasting freaks”.
What I’m disagreeing with is the supreme court not going “fuck off, you petty time wasting freaks”.
Because the real world is significantly more complicated than we imagine. Yes, it’s infuriating.
That makes more sense. I interpreted your ‘my country’ more generally… like actions of government or something co-ordinated.
Still, the supreme court just heard and decided the case. Nor is it a consious decision to do this rather than deal with all the other stuff. I guess they could have refused permission to appeal earlier, but I don’t think whatever else going on is a consideration. They’d just look at the case itself. And I think that’s the best way about it.
That said, I’m not sure I agree with it either, but I haven’t read it in full. Just the guardian article.
I imagine more than a little of my frustration is rooted in me not agreeing. But, I think I would have still been frustrated if the SC had decided the other way, just less so. I think regardless I would have wanted:
I guess they could have refused permission to appeal earlier[.]
But, more than that, these nonces have been noncing for actual decades. How the fuck is “whether oat milk can be called milk” a question we’re thinking about for a second time?! “The purpose of a system is what it does” is being thrown around a lot recently, I’m not sure organically. But fuck me if the purpose of our system isn’t to protect monied interest and bind the rest of us.
Yeah I can agree with a lot of that, honestly 2008 & so much since has made it pretty clear money’s the priority(specific people’s money). Well before that really with thatcher’s bloody privatising spree, selling off everything.
I just don’t think the courts are to blame, parliament & government are to blame for that. And by extension the money lobbying all that, the people who say the problem is immigrants not money.
a question we’re thinking about for a second time?!
I’m unfortunately gonna make it worse for you here, its probably 4 times. The supreme court, court of appeals, the high court and the IPO itself. You can read more on the case here.
Honestly brexit fucked up this since we’re duplicating work now, previously it’d be the EUIPO not the UKIPO doing this. I remember there being talk of creating a merged system even after bexit but no idea what became of that. They need to fix it up at some point, but either way the courts gonna be spending time doing things like this.
I’m all for clear labelling on food. I think it’s important. I don’t see the need to stop them using “milk” in any form. As long as it’s part of hyphenate “oat-milk” there shouldn’t be an issue.
Braindead ruling. Not as braindead as “the equality act was not intended to protect trans people” which is about as stupid and fucked up as it gets, but still really pretty braindead.
Malicious compliance time. Use “malk” instead and annoy them into reverting the ruling.
utterly-bullshit snowflakes…
Grow a pair!!
EVERYBODY KNOWS THE DIFFERENCE!
Idiocy.
Exactly, it’s still perfectly fine to sell tinned coconut milk, no one thinks it’s from udders.
Since the ruling is that only mammary secretions can be called milk, let’s insist that dairy is labelled “mammy secretions”, just so no one mistakes it as coming from coconuts.
What about Man Milk? Can I keep calling it Man Milk?
Not if you’re selling it in shops.
I think you’re in the clear if you’re just giving it away to people you like.
Only if it stays the hell away from my coffee! 🤮
Amateur
Mylk
Eh, I agree with the court. I’ll still call it “oat milk” but I don’t think companies should be allowed to sell it as “milk” in any form. I get they have quirky marketing and, IMHO, a great product, but allowing a corporation to use a word like that laissez-faire is pretty dangerous: oat milk isn’t naturally occuring and their product has lots of extra stuff added in (sweeteners, fortifiers, etc), neither of which should be true for a productive called “milk”.
but I don’t think companies should be allowed to sell it as “milk” in any form
Well sure, and they haven’t been able to in almost a decade. This court ruling is about something else. They’re not calling it milk, they’re not mislabelling their product. In fact, the campaign this is about is them saying explicitly this is not milk, and apparently that goes too far. I’m totally with you that food labelling should be clear, but this is not about that. This is not consumer protection. This is anticompetitive agribusiness lobbying, no more, no less.
What about coconut milk?
Natural and unadulterated. So, yeah.
Have the courts come to an actual definition of what (animal) milk actually is? Last I read, neither EU or UK could define it. Milk’s content differs so much from brand to brand and there’s no set standard. Presumably other than it comes from an animal of some kind.
Thank you. That was actually weirdly interesting in terms of the specificity (while also being quite broad). I can’t imagine how many hours and meetings and people were involved in that.
yes! we shall stop the capitalists by monitoring their language! this time we’ll get em!
Yet we can still buy “Milk of Magnesia” for poorly tummies.
The thing I find funniest about that is that milk of magnesia is rather new to the English language (1880 according to the Oxford English dictionary). Meanwhile terms like almond milk that are “too confusing” have been in the English language since Middle English.
Fucking lobbyists…
Cool I don’t eat or drink words. Enjoy the lack of milk in my house dairy industry.
deleted by creator
