Sodiaal-owned Yoplait has filed a lawsuit in Ireland against Danone, alleging its fellow French dairy group has imitated one of its products.
Yoplait confirmed to Just Food it lodged the action at Ireland’s High Court on Friday (11 April).
Discover B2B Marketing That Performs
Combine business intelligence and editorial excellence to reach engaged professionals across 36 leading media platforms.
In a statement, Andrew Burke, the managing director of Yoplait Ireland, said: “I can confirm that Yoplait Ireland has issued proceedings in the High Court against Nutricia Ireland (Danone) in relation to the passing off of its Yoplait Skyr yoghurt range. We will leave it to the courts to resolve this matter.”
The lawsuit mentions Danone’s namesake Skyr product.
Danone said in a statement sent to Just Food it “notes the legal proceedings initiated by Yoplait in Ireland” but added: “As a matter of course, we do not comment on such ongoing proceedings.”
Yoplait, which has been fully owned by French dairy giant Sodiaal since 2021, markets a range of Yoplait Skyr products in Ireland.
US Tariffs are shifting - will you react or anticipate?
Don’t let policy changes catch you off guard. Stay proactive with real-time data and expert analysis.
By GlobalDataThe dispute is not the first time the Danone and Yoplait brands have been involved in a trademark spat in Ireland.
In 2010, Danone successfully overturned a 2007 court ruling in Ireland revoking its Essensis yoghurt trademark.
Danone had launched legal proceedings against Glanbia, claiming the Irish dairy group’s use of the Yoplait Essence probiotic yoghurt brand infringed its trademark rights. At the time, Glanbia owned a local licence for Yoplait.
However, a High Court ruling initially found in favour of Glanbia, concluding the Essensis trademark should be revoked because it had not been “put to genuine use” in the market.
The decision was overturned in Ireland’s Supreme Court in May 2010. The court found Danone had established “sufficient” evidence about its use of the Essensis trademark and that the High Court should have concluded that its use was genuine.
