The long-standing trademark battle between Iceland Foods and the Icelandic government continues as the supermarket appeals recent EUIPO rulings.
- This eight-year legal dispute revolves around the use of the term ‘Iceland’ in marketing within the European Union.
- A 2019 decision revoked the supermarket’s exclusive EU rights to the name, upheld by the EUIPO in 2022.
- Iceland Foods contends that their brand name does not refer to the Nordic country, but to ‘land of ice’.
- The outcome of this appeal could impact how nations and businesses protect geographic branding.
Iceland Foods has launched a new appeal in its ongoing legal battle with the Icelandic government, questioning a decision by the EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) that nullified its trademark protection for the name ‘Iceland’. This conflict, which has persisted for eight years, focuses on whether the supermarket can maintain exclusive marketing rights for the word ‘Iceland’ across the European Union.
The case, heard by the General Court of The European Union in Luxembourg, represents the third phase of litigation in this protracted dispute. The Icelandic government initially challenged the trademark in 2016, two years after Iceland Foods had successfully registered it in the EU. This move came after the retailer attempted to block Icelandic producers from using their national name for product marketing purposes.
In December 2022, the EUIPO supported a 2019 ruling that removed Iceland Foods’ rights to the trademark within the EU. Although this does not prevent the company from operating or selling its goods in the region, it stops them from claiming exclusive use of the term. Richard Walker, the Executive Chairman, expressed the significance of this legal struggle for his business, which has been trading under the Iceland name in the UK since 1970. Walker highlighted the brand’s notable presence, with 1,000 stores, 5 million weekly customers, and expanding international operations in over 65 countries.
Iceland Foods insists that their brand name is not intended to reference the Nordic country but rather symbolises a generic ‘land of ice’. Despite the absence of an official company statement regarding the ongoing proceedings, there is anticipation of further protracted legal challenges.
The resolution of this trademark dispute may set a precedent regarding the interplay between geographic names and commercial branding, affecting how companies and countries manage naming rights in the future.
The outcome of this appeal could influence the future landscape of geographic trademark rights in international markets.
