111
Oatly banned from using word ‘milk’ to market plant-based products in UK (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 9 months ago by to c/unitedkingdom@feddit.uk
43 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 30 points 9 months ago (11 children)

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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 25 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    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?’

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    I don’t think the people in charge of this are the same people investigating blackmail by foreign powers.

    The supreme court?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago*

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    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".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago*

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent