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

In-house counsel explain why firms should provide risk management advice that helps them achieve their goals
Attorneys at four firms explain the AI trends they expect in the future, including a potential shift in who plaintiffs sue for copyright infringement
The dispute at the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court pits Dryrobe against D-Robe and will include a ‘genericide’ element
Novo Nordisk losing patent rights covering Ozempic in Canada and a US Supreme Court decision favouring Ed Sheeran were also among the top talking points
The court will hand down its ruling in Iconix v Dream Pairs on Tuesday, June 24, in a case that concerns post-sale confusion
Developments included a stay in a row concerning the UPC’s jurisdiction and a timeline for the rollout of the long-awaited new CMS
Jorg Thomaier, who has been head of IP at the German pharma company since 2010, will leave later this year and hand the reins to the company’s head of patents
Companies must conduct thorough IP due diligence – even if it may not be mandatory
Celia Cheah at Wong & Partners in Malaysia says she is aiming to tap into the Baker McKenzie member firm’s international network and expand its IP portfolio
A team of partners that joined Boies Schiller Flexner say they would like to double the firm’s patent litigation capabilities
Gift this article