SkyKick v Sky: Supreme Court says broad trademark filings can be bad faith

What happened

Sky sued SkyKick, a business providing email migration and cloud backup services, for trademark infringement based on its SKY registrations. Those registrations covered enormous ranges of goods and services, including computer software and telecommunications generally. SkyKick argued the registrations were invalid because Sky had applied for them in bad faith (knowingly seeking protection it had no genuine intention to use). The case went to the CJEU for guidance, then through the High Court and Court of Appeal, before reaching the Supreme Court, which had to decide how far a business can go in claiming broad categories of goods and services it never actually intends to supply.

What did the court decide in SkyKick UK v Sky?

The Supreme Court restored the trial judge's finding that Sky's applications were partly made in bad faith, because Sky had no intention to use the marks across the full breadth of goods and services claimed, and said the Court of Appeal's narrower test for bad faith was wrong. It also said the Court of Appeal was wrong to find any procedural unfairness in how that issue was decided. On infringement, SkyKick's email migration product did not infringe Sky's rights for "electronic mail services" because that term is read narrowly, but SkyKick's cloud backup service did infringe. The Court also confirmed UK courts kept jurisdiction as EU trademark courts over proceedings that were already pending when the Brexit transition period ended.

What we learned from this

• What I'd take from this is that registering a trademark across sweeping categories of goods and services you have no real plan to use is a risk, not a safety net. It can end up costing you part of the registration instead of giving you wider protection.
• Something to think about before filing is what you actually sell or plan to sell, rather than claiming broad categories just in case.
• A broad or vague specification using standard class headings gives no special protection against a bad faith challenge.
• Even a big, well known brand's trademark portfolio can be narrowed by a court if parts of it were filed without genuine intent to use.

Things to be aware of

The businesses involved

What happened next

• The UK Intellectual Property Office issued guidance for trademark applicants on how to specify goods and services following the ruling.Source: Gov, July 2025
• Commentators reported that English courts began applying the decision to trim overly broad specifications in subsequent trademark cases.Source: The Global Legal Post, September 2025
• A law firm noted the judgment clarified how far companies can go in registering marks across broad categories without genuine intent to use them.Source: ICLG, November 2024