Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Iceland is Suing a Supermarket That's Using Its Name (cnn.com)

Posted by msmash on from the iceland,-meet-iceland dept.

In a case which could puzzle copyright, trademark, and intellectual property offices, Iceland (the country) is not happy with a Britain supermarket chain, which is also called Iceland. From a CNN report:On Friday, Iceland, the country, took legal action against Iceland (the retailer), saying its enforcement of a trademark has prevented local firms from marketing their products using the name. Iceland Foods holds a Europe-wide trademark for the name Iceland, which it has been trading under for 46 years. "Iceland Foods has aggressively pursued and won multiple cases against Icelandic companies which use 'ICELAND' in their representation or as part of their trademark, even in cases when the products and services do not compete," the government said in a statement. The Icelandic government is now asking the European Union Intellectual Property Office to invalidate the trademark.

102 comments

  1. Supermarket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I didn't think markets were that super. Ok. But not super.

    1. Re:Supermarket by unixisc · · Score: 1

      'Supermarket' is Europeanese for a wholesale grocery mall

    2. Re:Supermarket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Supermarket' is Europeanese for a wholesale grocery mall

      The language you are looking for is called 'english'.

    3. Re:Supermarket by unixisc · · Score: 1

      A bit too vague, given that different dialects of it are spoken in the UK, US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, mainland Europe and... India!

    4. Re:Supermarket by meerling · · Score: 1

      Dialect doesn't mean different language, nor does it imply inability or difficulty in communicating.

    5. Re:Supermarket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dialect doesn't mean different language, nor does it imply inability or difficulty in communicating.

      Ever listen to a Scotsman? Even when they're speaking English, it's unintelligible and there's little communication happening.

    6. Re: Supermarket by jabuzz · · Score: 4, Informative

      On the other hand Iceland the supermarket is based in England, and what is spoken in England is English without any qualification. What the rest of the world speeks can be qualified as American English, Canadian English etc. but imposing that requirement on English people is a extremely insulting.

    7. Re:Supermarket by GNious · · Score: 1

      Dialect doesn't mean different language, nor does it imply inability or difficulty in communicating.

      Ever listen to a Scotsman? Even when they're speaking English, it's unintelligible and there's little communication happening.

      Had the same experience in Mississippi

    8. Re:Supermarket by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      When you say 'Europeanese' you mean 'English', though you're right that the word or close variants appear in many European languages. When you say 'wholesale' you mean 'retail'. When you say 'mall' you mean 'shop'. But aside from that, your sentence was correct.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    9. Re: Supermarket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it isn't! You must be one of those politically correct types that claim to be offended over every tiny thing...

    10. Re: Supermarket by wickedwitchofwest · · Score: 1

      Try saying that in Edinburgh or Aberdeen, where the inhabitants feel they speak the purest English.

    11. Re: Supermarket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, as a Englishman who speaks English it is offensive. You don't say English English (or British English) it is just English.

      Other countries speak variants of English, but in England it is just English.

    12. Re: Supermarket by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      The horse has bolted. All variants of English need an additional adjective to be specifically identified, including British English, which itself has a dozen sub-variants.

    13. Re:Supermarket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've heard something come out of the mouth of Sir Alex Ferguson, but I wasn't sure what it was.

    14. Re: Supermarket by michael_wojcik · · Score: 1

      Considering the number of regional dialects that still exist in England (to say nothing of Scotland and the rest of the UK), and the much greater number of dialects of Middle and Modern English that flourished for a while and then disappeared, this is a remarkably silly position to take. But, hey, you go ahead and pick the hill you want to die on.

  2. Name Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about changing their name to IS Land?

    I mean, whatever could go wrong?

    1. Re:Name Change by FormOfActionBanana · · Score: 1

      Well, that's what I was wondering, too. Their name for the country is Ísland and they could certainly just say that the new English name is Island now.
      I wonder how Slashdot is going to render that accented character...

      --
      Take off every 'sig' !!
    2. Re:Name Change by Rei · · Score: 1

      It renders Í just fine. Thorn, however, doesn't work :P

      --
      Wingus, Dingus! Listen up!
    3. Re:Name Change by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Or Lýðveldið (copied from Wiki, let's see how it turns out here), which is the Icelandic name for Iceland. Something similar to Burma changing its name a number of years ago to Myanmar. Europeans can then get used to that name, Iceland Foods keeps its brand rights, and people stop wondering why Iceland is greener than Greenland, or rather, why Greenland is icier than Iceland

    4. Re:Name Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is all rather missing the point... the British have been calling the Island, Iceland, for centuries. It's the Brits who should be pissed off that a name in use for a specific location for so long by them has been squatted by douchebags.
      Here is a thoroughly Hypothetical example: Say that there was an American Car Company called Lincoln. It matters not why they chose that name; they did. They decide to pop on over to Britain and state: "We own Lincoln. You lot in Lincoln and Lincolnshire can't use the name Lincoln in any of your Products, Promotions, Tourism, etc. anywhere else in the World. Maybe you should change your name. Have you considered Cadillac?" Legally, "Lincoln" can't do that... in Europe.

      Iceland, or "Lýðveldið", has one really neat Ace, and it trumps, (I hate that word now, but I have yet to find a suitable replacement...), Commercial Trademarks, and that is Geographical Indication:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographical_indication

      Products unique to Iceland and are identified with it are Protected: "Although a GI is not strictly a type of trademark as it does not serve to exclusively identify a specific commercial enterprise, there are usually prohibitions against registration of a trademark which constitutes a geographical indication." -1958 Lisbon Agreement, which predates Iceland Foods by a decade.
      Now there is an exception, a pretty big one: The United States, which never signed the Lisbon Agreement. Iceland Foods is entirely within their rights to prevent products from Iceland being marketed in the US, while bearing the word "Iceland", as long as they had the US Trademark. But they would still be douchebags.

    5. Re:Name Change by Novus · · Score: 1

      Actually, "Lýðveldið" is Icelandic for "the Republic". You could call Iceland "Lýðveldið Ísland" ("the Republic of Iceland"), but "Ísland" ("Iceland") would be the common name. Just calling it "the Republic" would be as silly as calling Great Britain and Northern Ireland "the United Kingdom" or America "the United States". Oh, wait...

  3. Re:Why does Iceland the country care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Why do they care? Did you even read the fucking summary? I guess not...

  4. Re:Why does Iceland the country care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you took the effort to read the intro, you'll know.

  5. Odd name for a supermarket by Hognoxious · · Score: 0

    If I was starting a supermarket I wouldn't call it "Bunch of fishermen who started a bank and stole everybody's money, the fucking cunts.".

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:Odd name for a supermarket by HuskyDog · · Score: 1

      When Iceland (the supermarket) first started out, domestic freezers were still a bit of a novelty (at least here in the UK). Iceland was so called because they specialised in this relatively new market. I am just about old enough to remember going there with my mother about 40 years ago when we got our first freezer and Iceland were still quite a new company. I vaguely remember a modest sized (by modern standards) supermarket with rows of big chest freezers.

      On the substantive point of the trademark infringement, I had the impression that if you don't defend a trademark then you lose it. Iceland have been displaying their name in huge illuminated signs all over the UK for decades so how the Country can now come along and act shocked I can't imagine.

    2. Re:Odd name for a supermarket by Sneftel · · Score: 2

      On the substantive point of the trademark infringement, I had the impression that if you don't defend a trademark then you lose it. Iceland have been displaying their name in huge illuminated signs all over the UK for decades so how the Country can now come along and act shocked I can't imagine.

      It's not the defense itself that's the important part. If you don't defend a trademark and it's used more and more to refer to things other than those you're selling, you risk the trademark becoming a generic term for... well, refrigerated food in this case, but w/e. The law cares only minimally about the amount of vigor with which you've defended the trademark against genericity; the important thing is whether it's still a trademarkable word or not. In this case, "Iceland" isn't used by anyone as a generic term, so the genericity stuff doesn't come into play.

      What might come into play is "laches", the legal doctrine that if Iceland-the-country has let Iceland-the-store spend decades opening stores and advertising and building brand awareness, it's no longer equitable for a judge to simply take the trademark away from Iceland-the-store. IANAL and I certainly ANA international trademark L, though, so it's possible that laches cannot bar this claim.

      --
      The opinions stated herein do not necessarily represent those of anybody at all. Deal with it.
    3. Re:Odd name for a supermarket by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Informative

      The country isn't claiming that the supermarket can't use the name, they are defending other businesses that use Iceland in their names from being threatened and sued by the supermarket.

      Iceland the retailer seems to think it has to stop all other businesses using Iceland in any context. Iceland the country it's upset because it makes it hard for Icelandic businesses to operate in Europe, even when they aren't supermarkets or likely to be confused with the British retailer.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Odd name for a supermarket by Rei · · Score: 1

      If I was starting a supermarket I wouldn't call it "Bunch of fishermen who started a bank and stole everybody's money, the fucking cunts.

      Funny, I'd call it "UK Government who tried to back out of their responsibilities as the secondary insurer after the primary insurer went bankrupt, and instead tried to blackmail a much smaller, weaker country into paying your insurance obligations for you that they were never responsible for, then ultimately sued and lost in court, confirming the very simple account insurance structure laid out literally one click away from the front page of the Icesave account information page."

      And funny to hear someone talking about fishermen, the UK, and stealing, given that you spent years stealing our fish (and overfishing them to boot) and we had to drive you out of our waters three times. In case it's confusing: This is Iceland. This is the UK. Learn the difference, and stick to depleting your own stocks, takk.

      --
      Wingus, Dingus! Listen up!
    5. Re:Odd name for a supermarket by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      So the three main Icelandic banks had debts between them of around ten times the size of Iceland's GDP and it's supposed to be the fault of the UK.

      Yeah, right.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    6. Re:Odd name for a supermarket by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

      Try again.

      1) The lawsuit was over Icesave, not over the failure of the three banks.

      2) Icesave was a savings program created by Landsbankinn backed by a private fund as the primary insurer.

      3) The secondary insurer was the government of the respective area that the customers were from - Iceland was the secondary insurer in Iceland, the UK government in the UK, and the Dutch government in the Netherlands.

      4) When the market crashed, the private fund went bankrupt. This passed insurance responsibility to the secondary insurers.

      5) Iceland paid Icelanders, as the secondary insurer for the Icelandic market, up to the insured limit. They later passed a bill paying out the full value of the accounts to Icelandic customers.

      6) The UK and Dutch governments, however, tried to shirk their responsibilities as the secondary insurers in their respective markets, and instead tried to blackmail Iceland into insuring it for them. A great deal of pressure was put on Iceland on a wide variety of fronts, ranging from EU negotiations to emergency loans to fisheries.

      7) The then-government commenced negotiations and came up with a bill to pay the majority of the UK and Netherlands' responsibilities, to try to be able to put it behind them and get the economy back on track. Our president rejected it, which put it to referendum. The public overwhelmingly rejected it.

      8) The next government used the failure to try to negotiate a better deal and got one for reduced, but still extremely painful covering of the UK and Netherlands' liabilities. Again it was vetoed, and again the public rejected it, although not by as large of a margin.

      9) The UK and Netherlands decided that this wasn't going anywhere, so took us to the EFTA court.

      10) The EFTA court reviewed the case, and found in our favour on all counts. The UK and Netherlands did bear responsibility as the secondary insurers and not Iceland. As is standard, all of the costs of all of the litigation additionally fell on them.

      --
      Wingus, Dingus! Listen up!
    7. Re:Odd name for a supermarket by unixisc · · Score: 1

      I think it's the slippery slope argument. If Iceland Foods does not defend its name everytime it's used by a company from Reykjavik (I'll use that to denote the Iceland government to keep having to type everytime 'the country', as well as the island itself, since not too much outside that city would presumably find its way into European markets), then sooner or later, an Icelandic grocery store could use a similar name to compete directly against the retailer.

      But thinking about it, I wonder how it'll work. A company would have to prove that its name wasn't used by the other entity prior to 1970, which it can't, since the country got its name about 1000 years before Iceland Foods came into existence. And that's even assuming that as a British company affected by Brexit, an European court would have no reason to rule in its favor given that it wouldn't have as free an access to European markets that it previously did.

    8. Re:Odd name for a supermarket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >then sooner or later, an Icelandic grocery store could use a similar name to compete directly against the retailer.
      I'm fine with that.

      The grocery store shouldn't have picked such a generic name that it should have known it didn't have a monopoly on.

      If I register "Grocery Store" as my business name, then I'm a fucking idiot with no chance of avoiding competition due to the name I chose.

    9. Re: Odd name for a supermarket by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      Fine we stick to our own fish stocks which we have for decades. You want to trade in the EU stick to *OUR* rules over trademarks. Simples really.

    10. Re:Odd name for a supermarket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...since not too much outside that city would presumably find its way into European markets"
      Iceland's single largest Export is still Fish, followed by agricultural products. Very little fishing is done in Reykjavik...

      "...then sooner or later, an Icelandic grocery store could use a similar name to compete directly against the retailer."
      As they have every right to do so, if they choose to pursue it. See my AC comment above about the Lisbon Treaty and "Geographical Indication". Think for just a moment why you can't legally make or buy British "Champagne"...

    11. Re:Odd name for a supermarket by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      you can't legally make or buy British "Champagne"

      Try "Britiskoye Shampanskoye".

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    12. Re:Odd name for a supermarket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, I'll stick to my Victory Gin.

      (The USSR, its devolved republics, and the USA never signed the Lisbon Agreement, thus the original Sovetskoye Shampanskoye and California "Champagne"...)

    13. Re:Odd name for a supermarket by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      This bullshit about secondary insurers wouldn't matter if they hadn't been trading recklessly in the first place.

      By even bringing it up you're admitting the original theft.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    14. Re:Odd name for a supermarket by Rei · · Score: 2

      This bullshit about secondary insurers wouldn't matter if they hadn't been trading recklessly in the first place.

      If you don't want your investment account to be backed with a private fund as the primary insurer, then... wait for it.... don't invest in an account with a private fund as the primary insurer. It was literally one click away from the front page describing Icesave accounts, clearly labeled. This wasn't some secret, you can't pretend, "Oh, I had no idea it was a private fund that was the primary backer!" It was right there in plain English, not even remotely hidden.

      Private funds are subject to the state of the market. In a financial crash, private funds can crash. Duh. I hope this fact isn't news to you. And that's what happened when a crash hit. What should have happened next was secondary insurers paying the bills they were responsible for, not trying to blackmail a tiny country into paying it for them.

      I'll repeat: if you don't want your money in an account backed by a private fund as the primary insurer, don't put your money into an account backed by a private fund as the primary insurer. And don't make BS excuses for your secondary insurer not paying. The UK and Netherlands had no objection to the insurance structure until after the crash. Well, waaaaah, if you had a problem with it, you had nearly two years to register an objection to it.

      They lost on all counts in court, and for good reason. Hopefully they'll remember that next time that they decide to try to use blackmail to get out of paying their bills. Oh, and declaring Icelandic entities to be terrorists didn't exactly win you any friends here, either.

      --
      Wingus, Dingus! Listen up!
    15. Re:Odd name for a supermarket by SpinyManiac · · Score: 1

      And you should learn the difference between trawlers and naval vessels. Firing on civilians in international waters during the Cod Wars did not make Iceland any friends in the UK.

      --
      It's never too late to have a happy childhood.
  6. Re:Why does Iceland the country care? by Jamu · · Score: 1

    You'd think differently if you went to a supermarket to buy a frozen turkey, and instead booked a flight to a Nordic island instead. Worst of all, they didn't even have any turkey, just putrescent shark meat.

    --
    Who ordered that?
  7. Re:Why does Iceland the country care? by ChoGGi · · Score: 1

    I assume because they're calling down the lawyers on any other company using Iceland + some sort of food
    TM: https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearc...
    company: https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearc...

    Can't say I've heard of can computers going after other retailers that sell computer parts and use the name Canada?

    "Iceland Foods has aggressively pursued and won multiple cases against Icelandic companies which use 'ICELAND' in their representation or as part of their trademark, even in cases when the products and services do not compete," the government said in a statement.

  8. Re:Why does Iceland the country care? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    More confusing is that Canada Dry Ginger Ale is made by a US company...

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  9. Canada Dry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Canada Dry isn't owned or operated what-so-ever by Canada or Canadians. I remember this, there was a boycott of it for some reason against Canada, and the owners had to come out and say this.

    1. Re:Canada Dry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It actually was originally Canadian, but it was bought by some American company which kept the name.

  10. Re:Why does Iceland the country care? by whoever57 · · Score: 3, Informative

    "Canada Computers". Then there's "United States Steel"

    NOT from Iceland here, but probably they are upset about the fact that the store branding is "Iceland" and not something like "Iceland foods", and, as the article states, that the food store has prevented other non-conflicting uses of "Iceland" in brand names.

    The result is that companies that are actually based in Iceland cannot call themselves "Iceland widgets" or something similar.

    Imagine if there were a US company called "Canada" that sold food and was able to stop Canada Computers from using "Canada" in its name.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  11. Re:Why does Iceland the country care? by ChoGGi · · Score: 1

    Replying to myself: Seems it's more then just food services they go after

    Retail services, retail stores services, mail order retail services, electronic or on-line retail services, supermarket and hypermarket services
    advertising services; marketing and promotional services; organisation, operation and supervision of sales and promotional incentive schemes and customer loyalty schemes

  12. Re:Why does Iceland the country care? by phoenix_rizzen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's right there in the summary why they care.

    Iceland Foods has been going after all kinds of companies from Iceland that try to setup shop in the EU using Iceland in their own company names. Iceland Foods is claiming trademark ownership over the word "Iceland" as used in the EU. Meaning, any Icelandic companies that try to get a foothold in the EU need to change the name they operate under or face a lawsuit from Iceland Foods.

    And Iceland Foods is not related to the country of Iceland in any way, shape, or form.

    Personally, I hope the Icelandic government prevails, and forces Iceland Foods to change their name to Ice Land Foods, thus allowing all their Icelandic companies to pay homage to their homeland in their new Iceland X company names. :)

  13. Second time around by mykepredko · · Score: 0

    (Profane) ACs: I can see that Iceland the country cares, but why?

    Maybe you can see a different summary and read a different TFA than I can do but nowhere do I see *why* Iceland the country cares if a corporate entity uses their name. It says Iceland the country "is not happy" but nowhere does it say why it's not happy and what is the reason for not allowing companies to use the word "Iceland" in their names/trademarks.

    --
    Mimetics Inc. Twitter
    1. Re:Second time around by arth1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      You need to read better then. It is clearly explained that Iceland (the country) reacts because Iceland (the company) is suing Icelandic companies who try to sell their products in the EU, and using Iceland in product names or descriptions.

    2. Re: Second time around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because this has a negative impact on Icelandic companies? How is this not obvious to you?

    3. Re:Second time around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's surprising Iceland (the shop) is still trading. It's a vile dump of low end / processed food, worse than ASDA (US think Walmart), and terrible compared to the likes of Aldi and Lidl. The fact they're trying to "protect" their name stolen from a whole bloody country says all we need to know: when you cannot compete, you go legal - just before you die.

    4. Re:Second time around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because the have to. If you fail to enforce or defend your trademark,you lose it.

      Iceland the country's position is essentially no different to a person called McDonald wanting to set up their own fast food business. Yes, it's actually their name, and no, they can't call their business "McDonald's".

    5. Re:Second time around by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Iceland is popular among low-income families (and we seem to have been working hard to increase the number of those in the UK in recent years) because they sell frozen everything. If you're working a job with long hours and low pay, then being able to pull things out of the freezer to feed the family and not having to shop frequently (because you don't have time to) is valuable. Iceland caters for this demographic.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re:Second time around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here in Denmark a guy selling sausages called himself McAllan and got sued by McDonalds...

      In 1996, McDonald's lost a legal battle at the Danish Supreme Court to force Allan Pedersen, a hotdog vendor, to drop his shop name McAllan.[13] Pedersen had previously visited Scotland on whisky tasting tours. He named his business after his favorite brand of whisky, MacAllan's, after contacting the distillery to see if they would object. They did not, but McDonald's did. However, the court ruled customers could tell the difference between a one-man vendor and a multi-national chain and ordered McDonald's to pay 40,000 kroner ($6,900) in court costs. The verdict cannot be appealed.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_legal_cases#McAllan_.28Denmark.29

  14. Re: Why does Iceland the country care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is like a company in Mexico called Canada Foods and suing Canada Computers for trademark.

  15. Iceland have franchises in Iceland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Iceland Foods also have franchises in Iceland. http://www.icelandinternational.com/franchises/

    1. Re:Iceland have franchises in Iceland by unixisc · · Score: 1

      In Iceland, can't they just call it 'Food'?

  16. Re:Why does Iceland the country care? by barc0001 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Because Iceland the country actually seems to have a vested interest in making sure their citizens can use their own country's name in business ventures. What a novel idea, a country looking out for its citizens...

    The crux of this case is that Iceland The Country is saying Iceland the Supermarket are being dicks and suing or threatening Icelandic citizens and businesses for having commercial ventures with the name Iceland in the name.

    To use your own example, suppose there was a US supermarket named Canada, that was threatening Canada Computers with a cease and desist and forcing them to change their name.

  17. Iceland (country) in violation of laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Watch what you wish for. With the current business leanings in patent/copyright/trademark laws, it may by Iceland (the country) that is in violation and would have to rename themselves.

    1. Re:Iceland (country) in violation of laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They did that a long time ago. The English name for the country is Iceland, the official one is Lýðveldið Ísland.

  18. Re:Why does Iceland the country care? by sjames · · Score: 1

    The problem is that they're suing companies actually based in iceland or selling products of Iceland simply for using Iceland in their name. Made up examples would be Iceland imports (selling stuff from Iceland), Iceland tours (providing tours of Iceland), etc.

    Imagine if Canada Computers was based in the U.S. and was suing any business using the word 'Canada' in their name.

  19. Re:Why does Iceland the country care? by Archfeld · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't the country Turkey object to being confused with a brainless edible bird...
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    "I swear with God as my witness I though turkey's could fly..."
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  20. Re:Why does Iceland the country care? by Snake98 · · Score: 1

    Hey don't insult the Bird turkey, by calling in by the country Trukey

    --
    Freedom of Speech only include discussion that are approved by the RIAA, MPAA and DMCA.
  21. Change their name to iSlam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It sounds almost the same, and couldn't possibly piss off anybody such as a corporation or a religion. /sarc.

  22. They Do It Too by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

    The last time I was in Reykjavic, there was a garden store called "Alaska".

    --
    Bruce Perens.
    1. Re:They Do It Too by Rei · · Score: 1

      Not familiar with an "Alaska", but there is a "Grænland" (Greenland) :)

      --
      Wingus, Dingus! Listen up!
    2. Re:They Do It Too by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Alaska... gardens... hmm. Well I guess compared to Iceland, Alaska is a land of green gardens. :)

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  23. Better headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Better headline: "Iceland its suing EU trademark troll that its blocking local companies to use 'Iceland' subname"

  24. The oddest thing... by julian67 · · Score: 4, Funny

    The oddest thing about Iceland (the frozen goods supermarket) is that, despite it being several hundred years younger than Iceland (the nation), you only have to briefly rummage around in the bottom of one of their freezers to discover goods which pre-date by hundreds of years the LandnÃmabÃk (the settlement of Iceland begun in 874 AD).

    And they taste yummy!

    1. Re:The oddest thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does this mean no more "Icelandic Honey Week"?

    2. Re:The oddest thing... by Rei · · Score: 1

      Never seen that sketch before. The guy doesn't sound or look at all Icelandic ;) That guy sounds German. And there is Icelandic honey, although beekeeping is still a sort of fringe hobby here, it's very difficult because of the long (albeit mild) winters and cool summers. But the number of people taking part grows every year.

      --
      Wingus, Dingus! Listen up!
  25. Tukey could Turkicize its name by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Except that that country could change its name from the Anglicized 'Turkey' to something like 'Turkei' (the same way they spell their country in their own language in the Roman script), just like Burma changed its name to Myanmar, or Upper Volta changed its name to Burkina Faso.

  26. Cod wars by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Given how they once had an empire that extended as far as New Zealand (is it anywhere near their antipode?), don't be surprised that they went after Iceland. They had to be driven out of most of these countries. What's impressive is that Iceland managed to take a hostile stance against a leading member of NATO, threaten to leave NATO if they didn't keep the Brits from encroaching, and ultimately forced the Brits out of there.

    1. Re:Cod wars by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      So, despite the cuntbrain above bragging about how fucking hard they are, they basically won by crying to the Yanks?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    2. Re:Cod wars by unixisc · · Score: 1

      I saw it as successfully blackmailing the Yanks. "If you don't stop the Brits from fishing in our waters, we will leave NATO and join the Warsaw Pact". A Soviet outpost in the midst of the North Atlantic which could have missiles strategically targeting the US, Canada, UK and Norway was probably enough to 'encourage' the Yanks to take the side of Reykjavik in this dispute

  27. Lýðveldið Ísland by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

    Is the name of Iceland in, you know, Icelandic.

    Perhaps they should stick to trademarking the name of their country in their own language, and leave the English, who invented the word "Iceland" alone.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    1. Re:Lýðveldið Ísland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps they should stick to trademarking the name of their country in their own language, and leave the English, who invented the word "Iceland" alone.

      Names of Iceland
      Island - Iceland's official and most common name

      Yep, Iceland would be trademark infringement even there.
      England didn't invent the name Iceland, they grabbed it from other countries that called it Island (Which literally means Iceland, it's just that English also grabbed the Gaelic word for a piece of land surrounded by water so they had to use some other name.)

      Also, only lesser people writes part of their post in the subject.

  28. Re:Why does Iceland the country care? by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Or rename Iceland Foods to Snowland, since that's not yet taken!

  29. Re:Why does Iceland the country care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They could also rename their vegetable product line to Greenland, and start a corner in every store selling diving equipment under the name of Finland.

  30. While they're at it... by rantrantrant · · Score: 1

    ...they should also sue Iceland foods for defamation of character. People probably believe that the god-like substances they sell are made in Iceland - a slur on Icelandic cuisine and production ;)

    1. Re:While they're at it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone that has been into an Iceland shop will never think that. It's a gutter supermarket that peddles processed junk.

  31. Re:Why does Iceland the country care? by meerling · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I agree, and I hope the country wins. After all, what moron allowed a company to trademark the name of a country they don't own?

  32. Re: Why does Iceland the country care? by jabuzz · · Score: 1

    Well they are a British supermarket, so the European bit of the trademark may well be lost in due course due to Brexit. However there is zero chance of them prevailing in the courts. Besides which Iceland is *OUR* name for their country not their name, so technically they gave *zero* legal legs to stand on.

  33. Re: Why does Iceland the country care? by jabuzz · · Score: 1

    Problem with your example is Canada is the Canadians name for their country. Iceland is not the name that they use in their native lanuguage for their country, leaves them on a sticky wicket legally in a third country where English was invented as a language trying to overturn a decades old trademark. Want to trade a a foreign country abide by their rules or go home.

  34. Re:Why does Iceland the country care? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    It's odd to see this on Slashdot, because it's been in the news on and off for a few months. The issue is that Iceland (the supermarket) applied for an overly broad trademark that would have prevented anyone else from using the word 'Iceland' in conjunction with food. Iceland (the country) objected because it prevents things like Icelandic fishermen from putting their country of origin in their advertising (which, given the exports from Iceland, may be problematic). They attempted to negotiate a license that would permit this use, but Iceland (the supermarket) refused. Iceland (the country) is now taking this to court.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  35. Re:Why does Iceland the country care? by KiloByte · · Score: 1

    Or worse, Budweiser instead of beer from Budweis means urine from several places in America.

    --
    The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
  36. Re:Why does Iceland the country care? by Fragnet · · Score: 1

    I just want to comment, tangentially, that Iceland is one of the most fucking awful shops in business in the UK. It's cheap crap. I have no idea what's in their frozen "chicken" and I don't want to know either.

  37. Türkiye by Pseudonymus+Bosch · · Score: 1

    "Turkei" is German. "Türkiye" is Turkish. Then again, you could stop calling gallopavos "turkeys".

    --
    __
    Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
    GW Bu
    1. Re:Türkiye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      also turkish is a color.

    2. Re:Türkiye by unixisc · · Score: 1

      No, that's turquoise - a blend of blue and green, more blue than green

    3. Re:Türkiye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i think you mean burlesque

  38. Re: Why does Iceland the country care? by sjames · · Score: 1

    It seems like Iceland *IS* following the rules. They are mounting a proper legal challenge in the courts. When speaking English, Icelanders refer to their country as Iceland. That is the English name for their country.

  39. Re:Why does Iceland the country care? by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

    Aren't common words supposed to be un-trademarkable?

  40. Re:Why does Iceland the country care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    - What's does American beer and sex in a canoe, have in common?
    - It's fucking close to water.

  41. Cheesy by crispin_bollocks · · Score: 1

    I used to love Dorman's Iceland cheese. They had some pretty good Baby Swiss also.

  42. Re:Why does Iceland the country care? by hattig · · Score: 1

    1. The supermarket's name is the full name of the country Iceland, and that's that. It's a source of mild amusement in the country to deliberately confuse the two, especially with the company's adverts which use "Mum's gone to Iceland" (because Dad didn't give her enough money to go to Waitrose, I presume, and other misogynistic themes).
    2. But in English, not Icelandic.
    3. And also the supermarket started off (and still mostly is) a specialist in low-priced frozen foods - hence the name - it wasn't named after the country.
    4. The supermarket is enforcing its trademark to stop companies from Iceland use 'Iceland' in their name.
    5. The country believes that this is unfair.
    6. Maybe the country should consider some more exciting branding around volcanoes and rifts for their companies. 'Horsemeat Iceland' is all very well, but "Erupting Mid-Atlantic Ridge Horsemeateries" sounds better.

  43. Re: Why does Iceland the country care? by jabuzz · · Score: 1

    And English is not their language so what right do they have to demand someone else change their language.

    Let's but it another way Sun had a trademark on the English name for the star at the centre of the solar system, and Oracle still enforce a trademark on the name of an island in the Malay Archipelago.

    What a bunch of thieving bankers have to complain about is beyond me.

  44. Re: Why does Iceland the country care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Besides which Iceland is *OUR* name for their country not their name.

    No, that's the correct way to write the country's name using the English alphabet. They write it "Ísland" (if the accent on the "i" doesn't show up correctly, go to the Wikipedia page to see it.)

  45. Re: Why does Iceland the country care? by sjames · · Score: 1

    As for Sun, had they legally threatened the Sun-Times, Sun Maid, or the many others using the name Sun somehow, they would have been in for a world of legal hurt. But they had the sense not to do that. They also had the sense to use the name of place that had no inhabitants.