Babek International v Iceland Foods: gold oval logo trademark survives appeal
Babek InternationalvIceland Foods
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Judgment
- 23 October 2025
- Citation
- [2025] EWCA Civ 1341
A written colour description attached to a logo only needs to describe the picture, not expand it.
Iceland Foods tried to have Babek's gold oval BABEK logo trademark declared invalid, arguing its written description clashed with the picture. The Court of Appeal disagreed and Babek kept its registration.
What happened
Babek, a meat processing company, owns a UK trademark for a gold oval with the word BABEK embossed on it, registered with a written description referring to the colours gold and black. Iceland Foods argued this combination was unclear or covered more than one possible sign, which would make the registration invalid under trademark law. The High Court rejected that argument but used a legal test borrowed from an earlier case, one about whether the mark had the capacity to distinguish Babek's goods, rather than the narrower question of whether the sign itself was clear. Iceland Foods appealed to the Court of Appeal.
What did the court decide in Babek International v Iceland Foods?
The Court of Appeal agreed the High Court had used the wrong test, mixing up distinctiveness with the separate question of whether the mark was a clear, single sign. It also found the High Court had wrongly relied on evidence about other marks on the register that ought not to have been admitted. Having identified those errors, the Court of Appeal looked at the issue fresh. It held the written description was simply a sensible summary of the pictured logo, not a description of some wider category of possible variants. There was no inconsistency, no ambiguity and no multiplicity of signs, so the mark was valid. The court also said it did not accept that the registration gave Babek any built in tolerance for "minor variations in hue": the protection covers the single sign as pictured.
What we learned from this
- What I'd take from this is that a colour description next to a logo picture is read as a summary of what's shown, not as licence to claim a family of similar looking marks. Keep the written description tightly matched to the image when you apply. Don't assume a figurative mark protects every shade close to the one registered, the Court of Appeal was clear there's no built in tolerance for hue. If you're challenging someone else's figurative mark on description grounds, you'll need a real inconsistency, not just a technical quibble.
Things to be aware of
- The Court of Appeal rejected the idea that this kind of registration covers minor colour variations, so enforcement against close-but-different shades may be harder than businesses expect.
- The case turned on a technical point about which legal test applies to sign validity versus distinctiveness, a distinction that matters for anyone drafting or challenging a figurative mark description.
- This was a validity challenge, not an infringement decision, so it doesn't tell a business whether a similar logo elsewhere would actually infringe Babek's mark.
The businesses involved
Babek International Limited
Registered in England in 2023, active company based in Bishop Auckland working in meat and poultry meat production. Holds one UK trademark on the UK trademark register, the gold oval BABEK logo at issue in this case.
- Companies House
- 14958366 Active
- Incorporated
- June 2023
- Registered office
- Bishop Auckland
- Business activity
- Production of meat and poultry meat products
- UK trademarks
- 1
Iceland Foods Limited
Long established frozen food retailer based in Deeside, incorporated in 1973. Holds 56 UK trademarks on the UK trademark register and brought the invalidity challenge against Babek's mark.
- Companies House
- 01107406 Active
- Incorporated
- April 1973
- Registered office
- Deeside
- Business activity
- Retail sale in non-specialised stores with food, beverages or tobacco predominating
- UK trademarks
- 56
What others said about it
- Lewis Silkin says the decision sets out how courts should weigh a written colour description against the pictured logo when deciding if a figurative mark is valid.Source: Lewissilkin
- Burges Salmon points out that getting the exact shade wrong isn't automatically fatal to a figurative mark's validity, precise hue isn't always decisive.Source: Burges Salmon, July 2025
- Fieldfisher's practical point: Iceland Foods' invalidity claim failed because small gaps between the image and the written description aren't enough on their own to sink a registration.Source: Fieldfisher, December 2025
How we can help
If something in this case sounds familiar, talk it through with us. The first call is free for new clients.
This page is for information purposes only and does not constitute trademark advice or guidance. Summary drafted with AI assistance from the published judgment and checked by The Trademark Helpline (how we write these). Judgment: [2025] EWCA Civ 1341 on Find Case Law, published under the Open Justice Licence. Company details from Companies House; trademark counts from the UK trademark register. Last reviewed 26 October 2026. Report an error.
