SkyKick preview: will the CJEU whip up a storm? (free)

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

SkyKick preview: will the CJEU whip up a storm? (free)

CJEU headquarters, Luxembourg City

Europe’s highest court will decide Sky v SkyKick tomorrow, January 29, in a case that has attracted much attention in trademark circles

The Court of Justice of the EU is set to clarify whether trademarks that are too broad contravene public policy, resolving a dispute between UK telecoms company Sky and cloud management business SkyKick.

Sky argues that SkyKick has infringed four of its EU trademarks and one UK mark, while SkyKick says those marks lack clarity and were registered in bad faith. Generally it takes issue with Sky’s broad range of protected goods and services, most notably “whips”.

In October last year advocate general (AG) Evgeni Tanchev issued his opinion. He advised the CJEU to rule that applying for a trademark without an intention to use it may constitute bad faith. However, he said a trademark cannot be invalidated on the sole ground that some specifications lack clarity and precision.

At the time, lawyers speaking to Managing IP said a finding that overly broad marks may be contrary to public policy would create concern among brand owners – particularly those with trademarks that have broad specifications.

One lawyer predicted that the tactic of registering broadly and ‘evergreening’ marks would probably be “dead in the ground”. Another said that if the CJEU adopts the AG's view it would be “another nail in the coffin for broad specifications and defensive registrations”.

In-house counsel seemed less concerned than their private practice counterparts when we sought their reaction. But they did comment that Sky’s filing strategy had been surprising and that the company had gone overboard.

The CJEU, which will issue its judgment at 9:30am CET, does not have to follow the AG’s opinion but the consensus is that it will.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Partner Rob Jacob unveils plans to offer a beginning-to-end trademark service, how to make prosecution profitable, and why IP ‘buy-in’ from the CEO stands the firm in good stead
Sponsored by CAS
CAS provides practical pointers on how intellectual property and R&D teams can work in tandem to unlock tangible benefits and avoid wasted spend
Sponsored by CAS
CAS explores how AI is transforming intellectual property, from inventorship and copyright disputes to new demands on patent attorneys
Sponsored by That.Legal
Gillian Tan of That.Legal discusses a recent decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore and what it reveals about the evidential burden in bad-faith trademark claims
Attorneys at Di Blasi, Parente & Associados share how the protection of trade secrets strengthens innovation by bringing together legal practice, regulatory developments, and established international references
Jin Ooi, who joins as a partner today, said he is excited to offer a ‘rounded’ IP service as the firm deepens its litigation expertise in the UK and Europe
As generics celebrate, practitioners believe innovator companies should brace for an ‘uphill battle’ when trying to prove induced infringement
A team from Cooley shares how they overturned a massive damages award by emphasising that the opposing company’s trade secrets claims were time-barred
Sponsored by Licks Attorneys
Eduardo Hallak, Rafaella Oliveira, and Laís Souza of Licks Attorneys explain how the provision operates in practice, highlighting evidential hurdles and best practices for patent applicants
Sponsored by Liu, Shen & Associates
Chunyu Cui and Ziqing Wu of Liu, Shen & Associates say recent trends in China’s intellectual property courts indicate alignment with international standards and send a clear signal to the global market
Gift this article