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

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

Sheppard has added quantum and robotics expertise to its AI industry team to help clients navigate questions around inventorship and IP infringement
The 2026 Americas ceremony recognised outstanding firms and practitioners, along with highlighting impact cases of the year
A development concerning Stephen Thaler’s AI copyright application in India and an integration between IPH group firms were also among the top talking points
As concerns around the little-known litigation tool increase, practitioners say they are educating their clients on how it can be most effective
Kilburn & Strode and Mewburn Ellis are just two firms that have invested heavily in office space – a sign that the legal industry is serious about in-person working
In major recent developments, Dyson snagged another win against Hong Kong-based competitor Dreame and a new AI-powered UPC platform was launched
Mohit and Sidhant Goel decided not to pursue an interim injunction application so that their client, Communications Components Antenna, could benefit from a fast-track trial
Anita Cade, head of Ashurst’s IP and media team in Australia, discusses why law firms that can pull together capability across different practice areas and jurisdictions stand to gain
INTA’s CEO says London-based firms have registered fewer delegates compared to past meetings in San Diego and Atlanta, and questions the 'ethics' of trying to participate without registering
Lobbies and interest groups are among the interveners in a major dispute over whether courts can set patent pool rates
Gift this article