The short answer
In SkyKick UK Ltd and another v Sky Ltd and others [2024] UKSC 36, decided on 13 November 2024, the UK Supreme Court allowed SkyKick's appeal in part. It held that an overly broad trademark specification can support an inference of bad faith, restored the High Court's finding that Sky applied for parts of its marks in bad faith, and said the EU Trade Mark Regulation still had direct effect for proceedings pending before the end of the Brexit transition period.
Case snapshot
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of the United Kingdom |
| Citation | SkyKick UK Ltd and another v Sky Ltd and others [2024] UKSC 36 |
| Decided | 13 November 2024 |
| Judges | Lord Kitchin (judgment); Lord Reed (concurring); Justices unanimous |
| IP area | Trademark: bad faith (s.3(6) Trade Marks Act 1994), specifications of goods and services |
| Result | Appeal allowed in part; bad faith finding restored for part of the specifications |
Background and facts
Sky sued SkyKick for registered trademark infringement. SkyKick counterclaimed that Sky's trademarks were wholly invalid because Sky had applied for them in bad faith, with very wide lists of goods and services that Sky had no intention to use.
The High Court found that Sky had applied in bad faith for part of its specifications. The Court of Appeal overturned that finding. SkyKick appealed to the Supreme Court.
The legal question
- What is the test for bad faith under section 3(6) of the Trade Marks Act 1994?
- If bad faith is found, how should the registered goods and services be dealt with?
The court's reasoning
- The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal was wrong to overturn the High Court's findings that the trademarks were applied for in bad faith.
- An overly broad specification can support an inference of bad faith, depending on all the circumstances of the case.
- Applying with no real intention to use a mark for the goods or services claimed is a ground for bad faith.
- The EU Trade Mark Regulation continued to have direct effect for proceedings pending before a UK EU trademark court before the end of the Brexit transition period, so the decision reaches the EU marks Sky relied on, not only the UK mark.
This study follows law-firm and blog summaries of the judgment. Check the judgment for exact holdings and paragraph references.
Result and outcome
The Supreme Court unanimously allowed SkyKick's appeal in part and upheld the High Court's decision that Sky's trademarks were partially applied for in bad faith.
Analysis: why this case matters
The decision answers the long-running debate on "trademark squatting" through overbroad lists of goods. A claim for everything is a risk, not a strength.
It also affects how filers draft specifications in the UK and, by comparison, in other registers.
Practical lessons for brand owners and inventors
- Claim only goods and services that you use or genuinely plan to use.
- Keep records of your intention to use when you file.
- Review old filings for very broad lists and file narrower ones where needed.
- Expect bad faith counterclaims in infringement cases.
Sources and further reading
Mofo: UK Supreme Court ruling, Sky falls in SkyKick battle
IPKat: UK Supreme Court rules on bad faith in Sky v SkyKick
Hogan Lovells: No more pie in the Sky
This study is built from the sources listed above. Where a point comes from a secondary report rather than the judgment itself, we say so. Check the judgment before relying on any detail.
Questions and answers
What did the UK Supreme Court decide?
That overly broad trademark specifications can support an inference of bad faith.
When?
On 13 November 2024.
Does it affect EU marks?
Reports say the EU Trade Mark Regulation kept direct effect for pending proceedings, so it reached the EU marks Sky relied on.
Facing a similar dispute?
SUPREMEiP® prepares the evidence and works with local counsel for registration, watch and enforcement.
