Iceland V. Iceland Foods Ltd: Use Of Country Names As A Trademark

Srijita Adak, BBA LLB, IFIM Law School

ABSTRACT

The ongoing Iceland dispute has gained substantial traction recently, marked by a significant hearing conducted by the Grand Board of Appeal at the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) on September 9th, 2022. This dispute revolves around the use of the term "Iceland" by the supermarket chain named Iceland and its implications for the trademarking of country names. The final decision, expected in 2023, has garnered attention for its potential to set a precedent with far-reaching consequences in the realm of intellectual property law. The conflict emerged from Iceland supermarket's EU trademark acquired in 2014, sparking objections against the Icelandic Government entity 'Íslandsstofa' for using 'Inspired by Iceland.' In a bid to protect the country's identity, Iceland filed for rectification, asserting exclusive rights to the term. However, in 2019, the EU trademark was revoked, citing the supermarket's late inception compared to Iceland's historical existence.

This case underscores a complex interplay between commercial branding and national heritage. It reflects varied international rules on trademarking geographical terms and country names. Certain jurisdictions, like Argentina, Cambodia, and China, restrict such trademarks, while others, such as the EU, USA, and Australia, consider the distinctiveness and descriptiveness of the terms. Switzerland, for instance, only grants trademarks containing references to 'Suisse' for products originating there, emphasizing the connection between geography and goods. Conversely, the European Union lacks such a rule, but trademarks indicating geographical origin often struggle due to their lack of distinctiveness. The case raises questions about the distinctiveness of geographical terms. If a term's geographical origin or destination overshadows its commercial source, obtaining trademark registration becomes challenging. Coexistence of commercial and geographic origins is possible if bona fide usage occurs. Ultimately, this dispute has ramifications for the broader landscape of intellectual property, particularly the trademarking of country names. The outcome will guide future discussions on preserving cultural identity, commercial interests, and the delicate balance between the two. The case highlights how trademarks, once purely commercial, can now intersect with complex historical and cultural considerations.

In a noteworthy development, the longstanding Iceland dispute has taken a step forward in recent times. On the 9th of September 2022, the Grand Board of Appeal at the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) convened a significant hearing pertaining to this matter. With the anticipation building, it is expected that the final verdict will be unveiled in the upcoming year of 2023. The outcome of this dispute has captured the attention of legal experts and industry observers alike, as it carries the potential to establish a landmark legal precedent.

Central to this dispute is the supermarket chain named Iceland, which has been embroiled in legal proceedings concerning its branding and trademark rights. Should the Iceland supermarket emerge victorious in this legal battle, the ramifications could reverberate across the realm of intellectual property law of particular interest is the question of whether such a victory would set a historic milestone by effectively paving the way for the trademarking of country names. The broader implication of this potential precedent is the hypothetical scenario where countries around the world might consider the prospect of trademarking their names for various purposes, including commercial endeavours. However, the intricacies of such an endeavour are multifaceted. The legal feasibility and ethical considerations involved in trademarking a sovereign nation's name are complex and layered, encompassing aspects of national identity, cultural sensitivity, and commercial interests.