Emma Green, shares why the Iceland v Iceland dispute could prompt businesses and lawyers to think differently about brand enforcement. 

Much has been made of supermarket brand Iceland Foods’ decision to walk away from a 10-year long trademark dispute with the country of Iceland.

The commentary so far has largely focused on the risks associated with geographic trademarks. Poor legal prospects have been cited as the likely reason why the retailer chose to change direction: indeed, the likelihood of overturning a decision of the General Court before the Court of Justice of the EU is notoriously low, sitting at only 6% based on data between 2021 and 2024.

Defeat into opportunity

The decision of Iceland Foods to channel funds otherwise earmarked for proceedings into a rapprochement discount has been simply dismissed as ‘good PR’, but it represents much more than that. In the post-mortem of this long-running dispute, what looks like a simple ‘walk-away’ actually reveals a growing trend of brands looking to capitalise on IP disputes as a way to generate positive press and turn defeat into opportunity.

The decision of senior management at Iceland Foods to call time on the dispute highlights two shifts within the business-as-usual approach to brand management and litigation. Gone are the days of commencing proceedings or appealing an unfavourable decision as the default – pursuing serious action before the courts or registries is coming under greater scrutiny and may be reserved only for the big ticket disputes going forward, as leadership are having to justify such action more thoroughly to stakeholders and investors. Legal budgets are being slashed across the board as the C-Suite pushes in-house teams to generate efficiencies using artificial intelligence (AI), even though most companies still lack an AI strategy or policy to support such change.

Registry proceedings and litigation remain important tools in the arsenal of brand management, but companies are thinking twice before simply jumping into a dispute as the main way to solve the issue. Not only does such action carry significant cost for the business but increasingly presents a serious risk of adverse publicity and reputational damage, the negative impact of which can far outweigh the benefit gained from pursuing a traditional enforcement path.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but would Iceland Foods have saved itself this legal headache if it had refrained from opposing the ‘Inspired by Iceland’ EUTM application in 2015, which ultimately triggered the cancellation action in retaliation? An alternative route might have been to monitor the use of the mark to better determine the threat it presented (knowing that it had infringement and invalidity proceedings in its back pocket) and instead focussing enforcement efforts on genuine bad actors.

In many ways, the rapprochement discount is the most interesting part of this story and the more significant takeaway for brands reading about the dispute – trademark disputes ebb and flow, and strategies can be deployed to elongate the process to gain leverage over the other side and see who blinks first.

Court litigation is often the headline grabber, and it’s unusual for a ‘simple’ registry action to attract as much attention, save for those with a public interest element, such as McDonald’s loss of rights in the ‘Big Mac’ mark in 2024. It’s therefore impressive that in walking away from an action, Iceland Foods has been able to quietly turn what would otherwise have been considered a defeat, into a publicity opportunity which creates far more interesting coverage and enhances the brand value, all by controlling the narrative and thinking creatively.

Engage marketing

Engaging marketing teams during a conflict should be high on the list for retailers - in the peak of the Colin v Cuthbert cake wars, the product line at M&S boomed with more product launches and redesigns hitting the shelves in the 2 years surrounding the dispute than in the 30 years since the original Colin was launched. The dispute with Aldi eventually reached a confidential settlement, but it could be argued that the publicity on social media increased consumer interest and played a part in reinvigorating the brand.

Enforcement for well-known brands now comes with additional public scrutiny, as what was once largely reserved for commentary in the legal press is now fair game for comments, likes and reposts on social media, with the threat of going viral for the wrong reasons looming large.

Tone of voice when sending cease & desist letters has always been an important consideration, particularly for brands that are conscious of managing their external reputation when it comes to enforcement and especially when there is a significant imbalance of power between the parties.

Marks & Spencer managed this well in 2023 when challenging a small ice cream parlour in Hertfordshire for its use of the ‘Percy Pig’ name for an ice cream flavour: the letter was posted on social media, but the fair tone and clear direction towards a solution (keep using the products, just change the name) prevented the issue from spiralling and an agreement was reached. It no doubt helped that several bags of the iconic sweets were sent alongside the legal letter to manage the messaging.

Unsurprisingly, discount retailers also circled for opportunity, with Lidl providing a bumper delivery of their ‘Henry Hippo’ sweets and an invitation for the gelato business to rebrand using its product, showing brand promotion opportunities also exist for competitors who can cleverly muscle in on the conversation.

Stepping back, all this activity begs the question of whether traditional enforcement is now enough on its own. Clearly, brands have to be enforced to preserve their value, and the enforcement strategy must be fundamentally rooted in the law. Strategy discussions should take place early and continue frequently throughout the dispute to stress test the decision to continue and the approach being taken.

This is especially important where there is an imbalance of power between the parties, or the dispute would be noteworthy because of the subject matter or counterparty involved.

Businesses should think creatively and prevent legal, marketing and commercial teams from being siloed when these issues arise – a collaborative approach provides a better foundation to identify opportunity and mitigate risk. External legal teams should also think more creatively, supporting their clients to achieve the desired outcome as well as signposting the wider issues at play.

This article first appeared in Managing IP on 11 March 2026 and is republished with their kind permission.