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

Lawyers at Lavoix provide an overview of the UPC’s approach to inventive step and whether the forum is promoting its own approach rather than following the EPO
Andrew Blattman, who helped IPH gain significant ground in Asia and Canada, will leave in the second half of 2026
The court ordering a complainant to rank its arguments in order of potential success and a win for Edwards Lifesciences were among the top developments in recent weeks
Frederick Lee has rejoined Boies Schiller Flexner, bolstering the firm’s capabilities across AI, media, and entertainment
Nirav Desai and Sasha S Rao at Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox explore how companies’ efforts to manage tariffs by altering corporate structures can undermine their ability to assert their patents and recover damages
Monika Żuraw, founder of Żuraw & Partners, discusses why IP should be part of the foundation of a business, and taking on projects that others walk away from
Lawyers say attention will turn to the UK government’s AI consultation after judgment fails to match pre-trial hype
Susan Keston and Rachel Fetches at HGF explain why the CoA’s decision to grant the UPC’s first permanent injunction demonstrates the court’s readiness to diverge from national court judgments
IP, M&A, life sciences and competition partners advised on deal that brings together brands such as ‘Huggies’ and ‘Kleenex’ with ‘Band-Aid’ and ‘Tylenol’
Stability AI, represented by Bird & Bird, is not liable for secondary copyright infringement, though Fieldfisher client Getty succeeds in some trademark claims
Gift this article