Iceland supermarket loses EUTM battle with country of Iceland

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Iceland supermarket loses EUTM battle with country of Iceland

Iceland news-comp.jpg

The EUIPO’s Grand Board of Appeal found that the marks suggested the supermarket’s goods and services originated from Iceland

The UK supermarket Iceland has lost its high-profile EU trademark battle with the country of Iceland, the EUIPO confirmed today, December 21.

The EUIPO’s Grand Board of Appeal (GBoA) held that although nothing prevented the registration of country names as trademarks, the registration of those names should be assessed carefully.

In its decision, handed down on December 15 but published today, the GBoA said it was particularly mindful of the fact that Iceland was a member of the European Economic Area, with deep economic, historical and socio-cultural ties to the EU.

The board said Iceland’s manufacturing capacity, combined with the fact that the country produced a wide range of goods and had sought to expand its foreign trade, worked in its favour.

Further, the country’s fame made it reasonable, credible, and plausible to assume that the EU public would perceive the EUTMs as descriptive of the geographical origin rather than indicative of commercial origin.

The GBoA’s finding upheld an earlier decision by the First Board of Appeal.

The case has become one of the most talked about trademark disputes in recent years.

In 2019, the EUIPO’s Cancellation Division invalidated two EUTMs for ‘Iceland’, owned by UK supermarket Iceland Foods, on the basis that they were descriptive of the geographical origin of the goods and services.

Iceland’s government and two non-governmental agencies had joined forces to invalidate the marks.

Iceland Foods appealed against the finding, after which the EUIPO’s First BoA referred the case to the GBoA.

The case was one of only a handful at the EUIPO opposition level – and the first at the GBoA – in which an oral hearing was conducted.

Although a smattering of oral hearings has been held at the lower boards, every case at the GBoA had been conducted without oral arguments, until the Iceland spat.

Speaking to Managing IP after the hearing, which took place in September, counsel said the oral hearing worked well and should be used again in the future.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

A principal at Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner explains how AI tools, including DeepIP, can position the firm to help clients
The firm explains why AI-empowered data analytics could make it more efficient advocates for its clients
Penelope Aspinall, of IP wellbeing charity Jonathan’s Voice, explains why managers should take a three-tiered approach to looking after workers’ mental health
Heath Hoglund talks about the value proposition of patent pools and why it went ahead with its first-ever series of pool meetings in China
Ryan Richardson, Chris O’Brien, and Jean Selep of Sterne Kessler analyse the treatment of SEPs at the UPC and ITC and highlight why SEP holders and implementers should be mindful of current developments in both forums
A ruling concerning the UPC’s jurisdiction, questions over costs transparency, and a missed deadline by Amazon were among the top talking points this fortnight
Exclusive data and analysis reveal how firms can differentiate themselves when it comes to costs and value
The Berlin office will mark the firm’s fourth German base and tenth overall
As we build up to another busy year for the IP STARS rankings and Managing IP Awards, we give a rundown of some of the major IP firms and trends in the UK
Three firms have received at least 13 nominations, while a further three have 12 nominations each
Gift this article