Iceland supermarket loses EUTM battle with country of Iceland

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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

Cookies Settings

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

Charles Harding plans to build a new team around life sciences oppositions and contentious work, drawing on his three decades developing a practice from scratch at D Young & Co
The firm reveals how its litigation strategies informed the arguments that took Masimo’s judgment past $818 million
The firm was rebuilding its IP practice through a string of patent hires and a Texas expansion, but its dissolution has put the newly built talent back into the market
AI can exploit longstanding gaps in copyright protection at remarkable speed, but EU law still provides tools to fight back, says Simon Hembt at Bird & Bird
The firm has tapped a local patent trio to establish a foothold in the market and broaden its national presence
New Asia-Pacific IP head Jonathan Chu is eyeing opportunities arising from Chinese technology licensing, overseas enforcement and increasingly IP-heavy cross-border deals
Europe’s largest intellectual property convention and trade fair is back: IP Service World 2026 takes place in Munich from November 23–25 – the 16th edition, with 1,400-plus attendees from 55-plus nations, 100-plus speakers, and 100-plus exhibitors. Three days. Two focused areas. One IP marketplace.
Mehmet Gün and Uğur Aktekin discuss four decades of change in Türkiye’s legal market, the firm’s commitment to independence and the challenge of building an institution that can outlast its founders
Boehringer Ingelheim has instructed a team from Kirkland, while Teva is being represented by Pinsent Masons
The Delhi High Court’s latest directions offer an opportunity to move beyond remedies against bad-faith registrations and address how suspicious applications are identified in the first place, says Fatima Baig at Lexlinc
Gift this article