Starbucks (HK) v Sky: Supreme Court says reputation alone isn’t enough to sue for passing off
StarbucksvBritish Sky Broadcasting Group
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Judgment
- 13 May 2015
- Citation
- [2015] UKSC 31
Being known in the UK isn't the same as trading here, and passing off needs trading here.
A broadcaster based outside the UK tried to stop Sky using the name NOW TV in the UK, even though it had no paying UK customers of its own. The Supreme Court ruled against it: reputation among UK consumers isn't enough, you need actual customers here.
What happened
A broadcaster based outside the UK ran a popular pay-TV service called NOW TV. Some UK residents knew the name through overseas exposure, online clips and in-flight entertainment, but the broadcaster had no paying subscribers in the UK. When Sky launched its own internet TV service under the same name, NOW TV, in the UK, the broadcaster sued for passing off, a claim that protects a business's goodwill (its customer-facing reputation and trade) from being misrepresented by a rival using a similar name. The broadcaster had reputation among UK viewers but no UK business of its own.
What did the court decide in Starbucks v British Sky Broadcasting Group?
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It held that passing off requires a claimant to show actual goodwill in the UK, meaning a customer base here, not just that UK consumers happen to know the brand from abroad. The broadcaster's UK exposure came from free promotional content aimed at building its business based outside the UK, not from UK trading. Since it had no UK subscribers, the first and most basic requirement of a passing off claim, proof of goodwill, was not met, and the case failed at that first hurdle.
What we learned from this
- What I'd take from this is that a strong overseas reputation doesn't automatically travel with a brand into the UK. If you want UK legal protection, having UK customers (or a UK trademark registration) matters far more than how well known you are elsewhere., If your business trades mainly outside the UK but has fans or viewers here, that popularity alone won't support a passing off claim., Registering the name as a UK trademark is often a more reliable way to protect a name before you've built a UK customer base, since trademark rights don't depend on proving goodwill., Businesses planning a UK launch might think about registering the name early, rather than relying on reputation built up while still trading abroad.
Things to be aware of
- The Court left open whether a business with a substantial, publicly announced and imminent UK launch might be able to show goodwill before it actually starts trading, but that question wasn't decided here since the broadcaster's plans weren't public.
The businesses involved
Starbucks (HK) Limited
Company linked to the claimant side of this case, as described in the judgment.
British Sky Broadcasting Group PLC
UK company registered in Isleworth, incorporated October 2014, active and operating in television programme production. It is the parent of the Sky group, which launched its own internet-based NOW TV service in the UK. It holds no UK trademarks on the register.
- Companies House
- 09256967 Active
- Incorporated
- October 2014
- Registered office
- Isleworth
- Business activity
- Television programme production activities
- UK trademarks
- 0
What others said about it
- 11 South Square described the ruling as resolving the difficult question of exactly when goodwill arises for passing off, tying it firmly to a UK customer base rather than mere awareness.Source: 11Southsquare
- Solicitor Will Chen's summary highlights that, for passing off purposes, a business needs customers in the jurisdiction, not just people who have heard of it.Source: Lawprof
- The Law Society Journal warned businesses that reputation built through overseas trading or free content is not enough; actual UK trade is what the law protects.Source: Lawscot
- The Cambridge Law Journal placed the decision in a long tradition of UK passing off law insisting on local goodwill, tracing the requirement back to its roots protecting local customers of local traders.Source: Cambridge University Press & Assessment, January 2016
How we can help
If something in this case sounds familiar, talk it through with us. The first call is free for new clients.
This page is for information purposes only and does not constitute trademark advice or guidance. Summary drafted with AI assistance from the published judgment and checked by The Trademark Helpline (how we write these). Judgment: [2015] UKSC 31 on Find Case Law, published under the Open Justice Licence. Company details from Companies House; trademark counts from the UK trademark register. Last reviewed 27 October 2026. Report an error.
