16/07/2025, T‑105/23, Iceland, EU:T:2025:729** and **16/07/2025, T‑106/23, Iceland (fig.), EU:T:2025:730
In the two cases we are discussing today, the General Court (GC) dismisses the action of Iceland Foods Ltd and confirms the decision of the Grand Board (GB), which found that both the word mark ICELAND and the figurative mark 
are descriptive under Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR in relation to goods in Classes 7, 11, 16, 29 to 32 and services in Class 35.
The GC recalls that geographical names cannot be monopolised as trademarks where they are already associated with categories of goods or services, or where it is reasonable to assume that such an association may be established in future, in the public interest in ensuring that geographical indications remain available to all traders, as they may denote quality, characteristics or consumer appeal (§ 25-27). The assessment of a mark in these cases requires consideration of all the relevant circumstances as of the filing date, covering a broad scope, and not limited solely to reputation.
In fact, the GB correctly relied on Iceland’s characteristics (some of which were unknown to the undersigned): its environmentally friendly energy production, popularity as a tourist destination, and its wide range of goods and services traded within the EEA (§ 36). Factors such as GDP, skilled workforce, and a solid industrial base are rightly considered as demonstrating Iceland’s capacity to produce and provide goods and services (§ 39).
For foodstuffs and beverages (Classes 29-32), the geographical origin is particularly relevant in this sector since Iceland produces and exports fish, meat, dairy, vegetables, beer, water and confectionery. Even non-native goods such as cocoa, coffee and tea may reasonably be processed and adapted locally (§ 48-55). For Classes 7 and 11, Iceland’s industrial base, skilled workforce and reputation for sustainability justify the perception that refrigeration and domestic equipment could originate there, with eco-friendly qualities (§ 59-63). As regards Class 16 goods, paper, packaging and stationery could be associated with environmentally friendly production methods, while printed matter and publications may directly concern Iceland (§ 68-69). Retail services for food, beverages and household goods in Class 35 could reasonably be perceived as being provided in Iceland, regardless of Iceland’s population size or a lack of service exports (§ 74-75).
Finally, the Court clarifies that the GB conducted a detailed assessment of the descriptive link for each category of goods and services, but it did not impose a general prohibition on registering country names. We will have to take it case by case.
Raquel Tostón
Attorney at Law
