CA-2025-000801 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1341

For the reasons given above, I would dismiss the appeal.

I agree with the conclusions reached by Arnold LJ and the reasons he gives for them. So far as the reconsideration of the issues is concerned, I agree with Arnold LJ that the reasonable reader would understand the written description to be an attempt concisely to describe what is depicted in the pictorial representation.

The alternative – that the written description is intended to describe a broad category of possible signs, of which the pictorial representation is merely an example – is not tenable in my view. Any attempt to describe the pictorial representation in detail – certainly the sort of detail which Iceland contends would be necessary – would be practically unworkable, given the multiplicity of hues of gold, and the positioning of the subtle variations in light and shade across the sign.

Accordingly, the reasonable reader would appreciate that an applicant who intended, in completing that part of the form requiring a “Description of the mark”, to provide a description of the pictorial representation and no more, would likely do so in summary form, rather than attempting to provide a comprehensive description of all its features. The fact that the applicant could have put this beyond doubt by including the words “as appears in the representation of the mark attached” does not detract from this conclusion.

I agree with both judgments.