Iceland Foods Is Still Battling To Trademark Its Canceled ‘Iceland’ Trademark In The EU
from the this-again? dept
When it comes to comedy, there is a principle that a physical gag will be funny if done 3 times, but then will stop being funny on any further attempts unless it reaches a much higher number, like 9. To see this in action, you need only look at this clip of the classic gag of Sideshow Bob stepping on rakes in The Simpsons.
That scene is the very first thing I thought of when I came across the news that Iceland Foods, the UK grocer, is appealing again the cancellation of its previous trademark for the term “Iceland”. As a primer for those unfamiliar with this story, Iceland Foods wielded its trademark for years against other entities, but got itself into this mess when it opposed a trademark application for “Inspired by Iceland”. The applicant for that mark was Iceland, the country. Rake to the face.
Well, Iceland petitioned for the removal of Iceland Foods’ mark and it won. Another rake to Iceland Foods’ face. Rather than slink away, the grocer decided to step on another rake by appealing the ruling to the Grand Board of the EUIPO. That same Grand Board denied the appeal, another rake to the face.
You would think at this point that Iceland Foods would have had enough of the losing, the legal fees, and the embarrassment of continuing to fight over this stupid lost trademark against a sovereign nation, but nope. The Sideshow Bob of grocery stores decided that there was at least one more rake out there and appealed their loss on appeal to the General Court of The European Union.
Executive chairman Richard Walker OBE appeared at the General Court of The European Union in Luxembourg on 16 October to provide opening statements in the supermarket’s appeal. This marks the third round of legal proceedings in an eight-year battle over the use of the word ‘Iceland’ for marketing products in the EU.
In a LinkedIn post, Walker described the legal battle as “a really important battle” for his family business. He added: “We have traded under the Iceland name in the UK since 1970 and today we are one of the UK’s most recognised brands with 1000 shops, 5m customers a week and a growing international presence in more than 65 countries – including many in the EU and EEA.”
Dear lord, stop. Nothing in the above has anything to do with the trademark in question. The company can still trade under its business’ name. It can have more specific trademarks, such as one on the whole of its name, “Iceland Foods.” It can still do business internationally.
What it can’t do any longer is bully the shit out of anyone else who wants to use the name of an entire country in their names or marketing material. Including, you know, the country of Iceland, which Walker’s company tried to keep from using its own damned name.
Oh, and one other thing:
The retailer maintains that its name refers to the “land of ice” rather than the country.
Oh, shut up. That is both completely immaterial to this entire debacle and not remotely believable. My sole hope is that this is the last rake the company will step on.
Filed Under: eu, euipo, iceland, trademark
Companies: iceland foods
Comments on “Iceland Foods Is Still Battling To Trademark Its Canceled ‘Iceland’ Trademark In The EU”
They can’t make it any more obvious that’s all they want to be able to do.
In a previous article:
History sure likes to rhyme, huh?
Y’know, given the time of year, I’m surprised you didn’t take the opportunity to refer to this case with any zombie metaphors or anything like that.
It’s only a matter of time before their new President Erik Thorvaldsson takes the opportunity to rename the company Greenland Foods in an attempt to make the company seem more profitable. But those in the know wouldn’t be fooled as Greenland Foods would be even more frozen.
This might be the most stupid trademark story
I have seen on techdirt
Re:
That’s kinda the point. Most of these trademark stories are inherently stupid, and TD is trying to make that obvious. I’m glad you’re starting to get the point.
“The retailer maintains that its name refers to the “land of ice” rather than the country.”
I’m going to trademark United States foods. It refers to states that are united, not the country. Once I have it, my first lawsuit will be against the airline…
Re:
You’re thinking too small. Name your company “United States of America Foods” and trademark “United”, “States”, “of”, “America” and just for fun, “American”. Think of how many organizations you’ll be able to sue!!
No, no, no. This the third time, so it’s still funny. You just said so yourself…
After this, we have to wait for Prenda-level ridiculousness for it to become funny again.
So no one thought about the country?
So in all the time that Iceland Foods has been around, no one thought about the country?
Was there no one who stopped to question the name of their company when they got started?
“Hey, Bob, let’s start a company called Iceland Foods.”
“But won’t the country of Iceland complain that we’re using their name?”
“Nah, we’ll be fine, it’ll never happen. And even if it does, we’ll be long retired at that point.”
Re:
It wasn’t a problem and should never have been a problem, but when the grocer started wielding their trademark as a weapon shit starts to happen like the country Iceland getting involved.
Re: "Iceland" or "Island"?
(Just kidding, folks)
In Icelandic, the country is called “Island”. (The Islandic word for “ice”, “is”, rhymes with English “fleece”.)
The British supermarket chain can offer to let the country keep their indigenous spelling of their name…
Meaning you don’t need a trademark across the whole EU, Richard Walker, only in the UK. Get it? Got it? Now stop stepping on rakes.
Hey, UK store named Iceland. Guess what the name of the country Iceland means?
To be clear, it is entirely believable to UK shoppers who have ever visited an Iceland store and know that it is mostly one big freezer section. That’s Iceland’s unique selling point which distinguishes them from other supermarkets, so it’s widely understood to be the meaning behind their brand name.
Still completely immaterial to the lawsuit, but I thought I should mention it. They aren’t regular supermarkets meaninglessly named after a country ─ they’re budget frozen-foods stores with a somewhat-descriptive but silly name that has obviously come back to bite them in the ass (or, rake them in the face, as the case may be).
Re:
The name isn’t biting them in the ass. It’s their insistence that no one else, including a country with the same moniker in English, can use the name in any way.
Re: Re:
If they had chosen a more sensible name then they would be able to have a trademark on it.
"Land o' Ice"
They can trademark their stores as “Land o’ Ice”.