Babek International Ltd v Iceland Foods Ltd [2025] EWHC 547 (IPEC) (11 March 2025)

Babek International Ltd v Iceland Foods Ltd [2025] EWHC 547 (IPEC) (11 March 2025)

The trade mark, as registered, was a figurative mark with a clear visual representation and a written description that did not create ambiguity or a multitude of forms. The absence of pantone numbers or precise hue specification did not undermine clarity or precision, as the reasonable reader would understand the mark as shown. The Sieckmann criteria were satisfied, and the registration was not in breach of s.1(1) or s.3(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 547 (IPEC)
Parties
Claimant: Babek International Limited; Defendant/part 20 Claimant: Iceland Foods Limited; Part 20 Defendant: Nathan Hepurker
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Intellectual Property (trade Mark) Infringement and Invalidity Counterclaim / Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Counterclaim for invalidity dismissed; trade mark held validly registered.
Legal Topics
Trade Mark Validity, Trade Mark Infringement, Clarity and Precision in Trade Mark Registration, Interpretation of Trade Mark Descriptions, Effect of Brexit on Trade Mark Registrations
Intellectual Property Law Trade Mark Validity Trade Mark Infringement Clarity and Precision in Trade Mark Registration Interpretation of Trade Mark Descriptions Effect of Brexit on Trade Mark Registrations

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Babek International Limited

Claimant

Iceland Foods Limited

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

Nathan Hepurker

Part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

Intellectual Property (trade Mark) Infringement and Invalidity Counterclaim / Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the registered trade mark lacks clarity and precision and is therefore invalid under s.1(1) and s.3(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1994
  2. 2 Whether the trade mark registration is ambiguous or encompasses a multitude of forms
  3. 3 Whether the trade mark satisfies the Sieckmann criteria for clarity, precision, self-containment, accessibility, intelligibility, durability, and objectivity

Ratio Decidendi

The trade mark, as registered, was a figurative mark with a clear visual representation and a written description that did not create ambiguity or a multitude of forms. The absence of pantone numbers or precise hue specification did not undermine clarity or precision, as the reasonable reader would understand the mark as shown. The Sieckmann criteria were satisfied, and the registration was not in breach of s.1(1) or s.3(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.

Court Disposition

Counterclaim for invalidity dismissed; trade mark held validly registered.

Orders

  • Summary judgment refused on the counterclaim for invalidity.
  • The trade mark remains validly registered.