The Day Iceland Defeated Iceland: A Lesson in Trademark Overreach
When Private Business Meets National Sovereignty
By Andrej Matijević | July 21, 2025
In my 25 years of practicing IP law, I’ve seen ambitious trademark claims. But attempting to monopolise an entire nation’s name? That takes the frozen cake.
The General Court’s July 16 ruling against Iceland Foods highlights why some things simply cannot be owned by private businesses. It’s not just a legal decision, it’s a statement about the boundaries between commerce and sovereignty.
The Absurdity That Started It All
Imagine you’re an Icelandic entrepreneur. You’ve developed an innovative product using your country’s abundant geothermal energy. You’re proud of your heritage and want to tell the world your product comes from Iceland.
Sorry, says a British supermarket chain. We own that word.
This wasn’t hypothetical. Iceland Foods actively blocked Icelandic businesses from using their own country’s name. They even challenged the national tourism board’s “Inspired by Iceland” campaign. At that point, Promote Iceland (Íslandsstofa) and the government decided enough was enough.
Why This Case Matters Beyond Frozen Peas
The 2016 challenge to Iceland Foods’ trademarks wasn’t just about protecting local businesses. It raised fundamental questions about what private entities can claim as exclusive property.
The EUIPO’s Grand Board’s 2022 ruling was clear: geographic names, especially country names, serve a purpose beyond brand identity. They represent origin, quality, and heritage—connections that belong to entire populations, not individual companies.
But Iceland Foods doubled down, appealing to the General Court. Their argument? Fifty years of use should trump everything else.
The Court’s Surgical Precision
Reading through the General Court’s dismissal, I am impressed by its thoroughness. This wasn’t a hasty response to corporate overreach, but a meticulous breakdown of each argument.
The Distinctiveness Trap Iceland Foods asserted that their prolonged use created distinctiveness. The Court’s response was clear: you cannot gain exclusive rights to a country’s name through usage, regardless of duration. Some terms are inherently descriptive and must stay that way.
The Future Potential Principle: Here’s where it becomes fascinating. The Court didn’t merely consider Iceland’s current exports (fish, dairy, meat). They acknowledged Iceland’s potential to produce anything, from processed coffee to high-tech goods. Why? Because with renewable energy, innovation, and skilled workers, geographic limitations are becoming increasingly irrelevant.
The Heritage Argument Iceland’s associations with purity, sustainability, and quality are not corporate assets. They are national characteristics developed over centuries. Allowing one company to monopolise these associations would be like letting someone trademark “Swiss precision” or “German engineering.”
Real World Implications
Iceland Foods hasn’t lost their business. They can continue operating exactly as before. What they’ve lost is the ability to weaponise trademark law against others.
For Icelandic businesses, this is liberation. A small craft brewery in Reykjavík can now proudly declare their origin. Tech startups can utilise their country’s innovative reputation. Fishermen can market their catch with its true provenance.
For the wider business community, it serves as a reminder that trademark strategies have boundaries. Geographic names—particularly country names—necessitate utmost caution. The more prominent the location, the stricter the requirements for exclusive rights.
Lessons for Modern Brand Building
After handling complex IP disputes across multiple jurisdictions, here’s my advice:
- Create, Don’t Claim: Build brands on unique creations, not geographic appropriation
- Respect Sovereignty: Country names represent people, not products
- Think Long Term: What appears clever today might turn into a legal liability tomorrow.
- Embrace Competition: If your business model involves excluding others from using their own heritage, reconsider the approach.
The Bigger Picture
This case signifies something greater than trademark law. It concerns the intersection of globalisation and identity. As businesses expand internationally, the temptation to assert universal concepts increases. However, some things must stay in the commons.
Country names are more than just words. They’re repositories of history, culture, and collective identity. They represent the dreams and efforts of millions. No quarterly earnings report justifies monopolising that.
Moving Forward
Although Iceland Foods might appeal to the Court of Justice, the comprehensive nature of both decisions decreases the chances of success. More importantly, the principles established here will influence how we interpret geographic trademarks for years to come. At least in the European Union.
For businesses considering geographic names, the message is clear: proceed with utmost caution. For countries, it’s confirmation that their identities stay their own.
As I often tell clients, the strongest trademarks are those that create new associations, not those that borrow existing ones. In a world where authenticity matters more than ever, trying to claim what belongs to everyone is not only legally risky, but also bad business.
The ice has thawed on this frozen conflict. And beneath it, we find a simple truth: some things are priceless precisely because they can’t be priced.
Andrej is an IP law expert whose strategic counsel has shaped landmark cases at both EU and US levels, bringing deep expertise in international trademark law and brand protection to high-stakes disputes.