Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB [2026] UKSC 4 – S 3(4) TMA - Point 5 of PART III of Annex VII MAPR – FICR – MCAD. - prohibited registration of trade mark.
- regulation of dairy terms such as “milk” in marketing of agricultural products.
1) use of term “milk” in respect of oat-based food or drink is prohibited.
- prohibition bites where designation used for relevant product; not necessary that used as name of the product.
2) designation of term “milk” in relation to oat-based food or drink only permitted on basis that used to describe a “characteristic quality of the product” such as “milk free” where this is done “clearly”.
Brown v Chief Constable of Sussex Police [2025] EWHC 1527 (Admin) – S 19 PACE – s 1 DDA. - fact that possession of an item is an offence does not prevent it being taken into possession of officer by way of lawful seizure.
- fact that s 1 DDA provides no one may have prohibited dog in their possession, and only specifies seizure as an exception when carried out under DDA power, does not prevent police constable exercising power of seizure under s 19 PACE.
- s 1 DDA concerned with defining an offence whereas s 19 PACE concerned with investigating an offence.
- clear words would have been required in DDA to expressly exclude powers of seizure under PACE.
DPP v Jackson [2025] EWHC 2797 (Admin) – S 39A CJA 1988. - statutory time limit for prosecution.
- exclusionary rule: reference to “after” or “from” indicates starting date excluded from calculation of time limit.
- corresponding date rule: when time limit is number of months, period ends on corresponding date in appropriate month.
Access all Areas: The Ghost of Woolworths Victor Smith ponders a recent case which suggests that the 2002 decision in Woolworths, may still be unduly influential despite the Court of Appeal having declared it to be wrongly decided. First published in the New Law Journal with Part 1 at (2023) 173 NLJ 8011 p9 and with Part 2 at (2023) 173 NLJ 8012 p11.
De Montfort University: My Student Experience and the Law Victor Smith recounts his three-year attempt to get a recalcitrant university to comply with its procedures and honour its promises. Court finds DMU handled student complaint "badly" but student effectively penalised in costs.
Double Jeopardy: Autrefois & Beyond Victor Smith examines the circumstances in which it would offend the court’s sense of justice and propriety to proceed with a prosecution when the accused has faced that same or similar peril before. In such cases the defendant may plead autrefois or, where that is not applicable, seek a stay of the proceedings as an abuse of process of the court. First published in the New Law Journal at (2021) 171 NLJ 7933, p13 with Part 2 at (2021) 171 NLJ 7935.
Guilt from Circumstance: A Matter of Inference Victor Smith looks at when inference can result in conviction. A shorter version was previously published in the New Law Journal at (2019) 169 NLJ 7865, p12.
Amending the Defendant’s Name Victor Smith traces the origins of the principle that a charge cannot be amended by substituting one defendant for another and considers the Platinum case which highlights the distinction between entities that are truly different and the same defendant who has merely been misnamed. First published as “Who’s in the dock?” at (2018) 168 NLJ 7813, p11 with Part 2 at (2018) 168 NLJ 7814, p11.
What's popular
Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB [2026] UKSC 4 – S 3(4) TMA - Point 5 of PART III of Annex VII MAPR – FICR – MCAD. - prohibited registration of trade mark.
- regulation of dairy terms such as “milk” in marketing of agricultural products.
1) use of term “milk” in respect of oat-based food or drink is prohibited.
- prohibition bites where designation used for relevant product; not necessary that used as name of the product.
2) designation of term “milk” in relation to oat-based food or drink only permitted on basis that used to describe a “characteristic quality of the product” such as “milk free” where this is done “clearly”.