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

Counsel for Babek submitted that the judge’s decision was an evaluative assessment and thus this Court could only intervene if he erred in law or in principle, which includes a gap in logic, a lack of consistency or a failure to take into account a material factor that undermines the cogency of the conclusion, it not being enough that this Court might have reached a different conclusion: see Lifestyle Equities CV v Amazon UK Services Ltd [2024] UKSC 8, [2024] Bus LR 532 at [46]-[50] (Lord Briggs and Lord Kitchin) and Iconix Luxembourg Holdings SARL v Dream Pairs Europe Inc [2025] UKSC 25 at [94]-[95] (Lord Briggs and Lord Stephens). Counsel for Iceland disputed this, and submitted that there could only be one right answer to the question of whether the Trade Mark complied with the first and second conditions for registrability. I am inclined to agree with the latter proposition, but for reasons that will appear it is not necessary to decide this question.