Iceland Supermarket Ends Trademark Feud with Nordic Nation After Decade-Long Battle
The protracted trademark conflict between UK frozen food retailer Iceland and its Nordic namesake, the country of Iceland, appears to be reaching a peaceful resolution after years of legal frostiness. The supermarket's executive chair, Richard Walker, has signaled an end to the chilly dispute that began under his father's leadership, even extending an olive branch in the form of special discounts for shoppers in Reykjavik.
A Frozen Conflict Thaws
This trademark saga dates back to 2016 when the Icelandic government initiated legal proceedings against Iceland Foods. The Nordic nation argued that the supermarket's European trademark registration for the term "Iceland" was unfairly restricting Icelandic businesses from properly identifying their geographic origins. The conflict intensified when Malcolm Walker, the retailer's co-founder and Richard's father, dispatched a high-level delegation to Iceland in 2016 in an attempt to persuade the country to withdraw its challenge.
Malcolm Walker maintained that his company had "co-existed with the country called Iceland very happily" since registering its name in 1970. However, Icelandic officials countered that Iceland Foods had been aggressively pursuing action against companies attempting to use "Iceland" in their branding, effectively harassing businesses from the Nordic island nation.
Legal Decisions and Geographic Rights
The European Union Intellectual Property Office delivered a significant blow to the retailer in 2019 by canceling its Icelandic trademark. The ruling affirmed a fundamental principle: geographical names must remain available for public use rather than being monopolized by commercial entities. This decision was reinforced last year when the EU's general court rejected Iceland Foods' appeal, solidifying the legal precedent.
Thorgerdur Katrin Gunnarsdottir, Iceland's minister for foreign affairs, welcomed the court's decision, emphasizing the importance of geographic identifiers for Icelandic businesses. She explained: "For our companies it is of considerable value to be able to clearly refer to their Icelandic origin, with all the underlying thoughts of clean air and pristine nature that it carries internationally when you identify yourself as Icelandic. It carries great value for all of us, and we tend to say it with pride."
Supermarket Concedes Defeat
Richard Walker acknowledged the finality of the legal outcome in comments to the Financial Times, stating: "We lost for a third time. We're going to throw in the towel. It's actually fine – we don't have to change our name." Despite the trademark cancellation at the EU level, the retailer retains its UK trademark registrations, meaning British operations remain unaffected.
Trademark lawyer Nick Buckland, a partner at Lewis Silkin, explained to City AM why the supermarket's defense ultimately failed: "The supermarket is right; the lack of a trade mark will not stop them from using the name 'Iceland'. It also does not affect the UK, where Iceland's trade marks remain registered. Their defense failed because they were unable to prove that their shops are recognisable by the name 'Iceland' across the EU."
Economic Disparity and Symbolic Gestures
The economic landscape between the two Icelands has shifted dramatically over the years. While their values were relatively close earlier this decade with only £7.9 billion separating them in 2009, Iceland's national GDP now substantially overshadows the retailer's turnover. In 2024, Iceland's GDP reached £24.9 billion ($33.3 billion), compared to the supermarket's £4.1 billion turnover for that financial year.
In a gesture of reconciliation, Richard Walker has proposed offering a "rapprochement discount to the good Icelandic people." Buckland noted that "after a decade of legal sparring, the offer of a discount for Icelandic customers should at least thaw the relationship between supermarket and country." This symbolic move represents a significant shift from the frosty relations that have characterized this unusual conflict between a nation and a retailer sharing the same name.
