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 2025

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

IP lawyers at three firms reflect on how courts across Australia have reacted to AI use in litigation, and explain why they support measured use of the technology
AJ Park’s owner, IPH, announced earlier this week that Steve Mitchell will take the reins of the New Zealand-based firm in January
Chris Adamson and Milli Bouri of Adamson & Partners join us to discuss IP market trends and what law firm and in-house clients are looking for
Noemi Parrotta, chair of the European subcommittee within INTA's International Amicus Committee, explains why the General Court’s decision in the Iceland case could make it impossible to protect country names as trademarks
Inès Garlantezec, who became principal of the firm’s Luxembourg office earlier this year, discusses what's been keeping her busy, including settling a long-running case
In the sixth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP Futures, a network for early-career stage IP professionals
Rachel Cohen has reunited with her former colleagues to strengthen Weil’s IP litigation and strategy work
McKool Smith’s Jennifer Truelove explains how a joint effort between her firm and Irell & Manella secured a win for their client against Samsung
Tilleke & Gibbins topped the leaderboard with four awards across the region, while Anand & Anand and Kim & Chang emerged as outstanding domestic firms
News of a new addition to Via LA’s Qi wireless charging patent pool, and potential fee increases at the UKIPO were also among the top talking points
Gift this article