Sky Trademark Cases: What SkyKick, NOW TV and SkyDrive Teach Every Brand Owner
Sky is built on one of the most ordinary words in English, and it has spent years in the UK courts working out how much of that word it can protect. The Sky trademark cases cover almost every big question in trademark law: how far a registration can reach, when a similar name goes too far, what reputation is worth without customers, and what happens when the list of goods and services is longer than the business behind it. If your brand uses an everyday word, or you're thinking of enforcing one, these cases are a practical guide before you register a trademark or send a letter.
- Brand
- Sky Limited
- Incorporated 1988, Middlesex
- UK trademarks
- 471
- on the UK register
- Courts involved
- Supreme CourtCourt of AppealHigh CourtIPEC
A long specification is not a bigger shield.
Who is Sky?
Sky Limited was incorporated in 1988 and is based in Middlesex. It provides TV, broadband and phone services, and it holds 471 trademarks on the UK trademark register. In the cases below it appears under several names, including British Sky Broadcasting Group, Sky plc and Sky Ltd. Across those cases it has been the brand owner suing, the business being sued and, once, the internet provider asked to block other people's websites.
The key case: SkyKick v Sky
SkyKick v Sky
Sky sued SkyKick, a business offering email migration and cloud backup, relying on SKY registrations that covered enormous categories, including "computer software" as a whole. SkyKick argued those registrations had been applied for in bad faith, meaning Sky had claimed goods and services it never genuinely intended to offer. The Supreme Court restored the trial judge's finding that parts of Sky's registrations had been applied for in bad faith, and said the Court of Appeal's narrower test was wrong. On infringement, SkyKick's email migration product did not infringe, but its cloud backup service did.
The case went through every level of the UK courts, and to the Court of Justice of the EU, before the Supreme Court decided it.
“What I'd take from this is that a dictionary word can be a strong brand. A long specification is not a bigger shield.”
The cases over time
Each badge describes that one case- 2011Sky v Digital Satellite Warranty Cover · High CourtWarranty sellers liablePartly successful
- 2012Starbucks (UK) v Sky · High CourtNo pause, fast trial orderedProcedural ruling
- Starbucks (HK) v Sky · Court of AppealUrgency lets the case go aheadDefendant won
- Sky v Digital Satellite Warranty Cover · High CourtDirectors personally liablePartly successful
- Starbucks (HK) v Sky · High CourtNOW mark invalid, NOW TV clearedDefendant won
- Sky v Digital Satellite Warranty Cover · High CourtCosts rulingProcedural ruling
- 2013Sky v Microsoft · High CourtSkyDrive infringedClaimant won
- 2014Cartier v Sky · High CourtInternet providers ordered to block counterfeit sitesClaimant won
- 2015Starbucks (HK) v Sky · Supreme CourtReputation without UK customers failsDefendant won
- 2016Skyscape v Sky · IPECSkyscape fails to clear its nameDefendant won
- Cartier v Sky · Court of AppealBlocking orders upheld on appealPartly successful
- 2017Sky v SkyKick · High CourtNo early reference to EuropeProcedural ruling
- 2018Sky v SkyKick · High CourtBad faith questions sent to Europe
- Sky v SkyKick · High CourtQuestions for Europe finalisedProcedural ruling
- Sky v SkyKick · Court of AppealNo early appealProcedural ruling
- 2020Sky v SkyKick · High CourtMarks partly invalid for bad faithPartly successful
- Sky v SkyKick · High CourtInjunction granted to SkyPartly successful
- 2024SkyKick v Sky · Supreme CourtBroad filings partly in bad faithPartly successful
How SkyKick reached the Supreme Court
Sky v SkyKick
The court refused to send an EU law question about the own-name defence to Europe before trial, and let the UK case continue despite a parallel challenge at the EU trademark office.
Read our summarySky v SkyKick
Assuming Sky's marks were valid, SkyKick's name would cause confusion for ordinary customers, and its own-name defence failed. The court found Sky had applied for marks without intending to use them across their full breadth, and sent questions on bad faith and vague terms to the Court of Justice of the EU.
Summary coming soonSky v SkyKick
Sky's request for the judge to revisit that ruling was refused, and the questions for the Court of Justice of the EU were finalised.
Read our summarySky v SkyKick
The Court of Appeal declined to hear an early appeal and let the reference to Europe run its course.
Read our summarySky v SkyKick
After the EU court ruled that vague wording alone doesn't invalidate a mark, but applying with no intention to use can be bad faith, the High Court found Sky's marks partly invalid for bad faith and narrowed terms such as "computer software".
Read our summarySky v SkyKick
Sky was granted an injunction. The court held that a mark being partly invalid for bad faith was no special reason to refuse one.
Read our summaryThe UKIPO has since built the Supreme Court's ruling into examination. Since 27 June 2025, examiners can object to specifications that are manifestly and self-evidently broad. An application claiming all 45 classes, or every item in Class 9, now draws an automatic objection.
When “Sky” plus another word went too far
Sky's marks have been tested against other names that start with "Sky", with different results depending on the question asked.
Sky v Microsoft
Microsoft's SkyDrive cloud storage service infringed Sky's trademarks and was passing off. "Drive" was descriptive of storage, but "Sky" was not descriptive of cloud storage at the relevant dates, so it was the dominant part of the name. Evidence of real confusion, including calls to Sky's own helpline, helped tip the balance. Microsoft's claims that Sky's marks were invalid, including for bad faith, failed.
Summary coming soonSkyscape v Sky
A cloud services provider to the UK public sector asked the court to declare that its use of "Skyscape" didn't infringe. The court refused to rule on its broad list of uses, tested only a narrowed example (email services), and found Skyscape had not proved there was no likelihood of confusion. Sky did not bring its own infringement claim.
Read our summaryNOW TV: when Sky was the one being sued
When Sky launched its internet TV service, NOW TV, in 2012, it was on the other side of the dispute. A broadcaster based outside the UK, part of the PCCW group and trading in the UK courts as Starbucks (HK) (not the coffee chain), ran its own pay-TV service called NOW TV and held an EU trademark for NOW.
Starbucks (UK) v Sky
Sky's request to pause the case while it challenged the NOW trademark at the EU trademark office was refused, and a fast trial was ordered.
Summary coming soonStarbucks (HK) v Sky
The court said a UK case is usually paused for a parallel EU challenge, but genuine urgency can justify going ahead. That urgency existed here because Sky's launch was imminent.
Summary coming soonStarbucks (HK) v Sky
The NOW trademark was invalid, because consumers would read "now" as describing an instant service rather than pointing to one business. Even if valid, Sky's NOW TV would not have infringed it, and the passing off claims failed.
Summary coming soonStarbucks (HK) v Sky
Passing off requires goodwill in the UK, meaning a customer base here. Being known to UK viewers through clips online and in-flight entertainment was not enough without UK subscribers.
Read our summaryProtecting customers from businesses borrowing the Sky name
Not every Sky case is about the register. Some are about businesses trading on customers' trust in the name.
Sky v Digital Satellite Warranty Cover
Companies selling extended warranties for Sky equipment were liable for trademark infringement and passing off, because their marketing and phone scripts were calculated to make customers think Sky was behind the calls. They were also liable for breach of confidence and database right. Whether the individual directors were personally liable needed a full trial.
Summary coming soonSky v Digital Satellite Warranty Cover
At trial, three directors were found personally liable alongside their companies, because they had shared in a common plan to misuse the data, infringe the trademarks and pass off the warranties as connected to Sky. Claims against four other individuals were dismissed.
Summary coming soonSky v Digital Satellite Warranty Cover
On costs, the court refused to lift the insolvency stay protecting two companies in liquidation. Defendants whose evidence was found dishonest were ordered to pay Sky's costs, some on the stricter indemnity basis.
Summary coming soonWhen Sky was the internet provider
Cartier v Sky
Here Sky wasn't the brand owner at all. It was one of five major UK internet providers that the owner of Cartier and Montblanc asked the court to order to block websites selling counterfeits. The High Court granted the orders with safeguards, including a time limit. The Court of Appeal confirmed the court had the power to make them, and held by a majority that the providers would bear the cost of implementing them.
What I’d take from the Sky trademark cases
- 1What I'd take from this is that a dictionary word can be a strong brand. "Sky" was protectable for broadcasting and, at the time, for cloud storage, because it didn't describe those services.
- 2A long specification is not a bigger shield. Claiming goods and services you never intend to offer can cost you part of the registration, and since June 2025 the UKIPO can object before a mark is even registered.
- 3Partly invalid doesn't mean powerless. Sky still won an injunction against SkyKick on the parts of its registrations that survived.
- 4Asking a court to clear your name puts the burden on you. Skyscape had to prove a negative, and couldn't.
- 5Fame doesn't travel by itself. Without UK customers, a well-known name from elsewhere couldn't stop Sky using NOW TV.
- 6Borrowing a well-known brand's name to win customers' trust can lead to personal liability for the people running the business, not just the company.
If your name includes an everyday word, a trademark clearance audit checks how distinctive it really is and what's already on the register, and our UK trademark registration service builds your specification around what you actually sell. If a rival's registration looks wider than its business, our cancellation and invalidation service can review it. If someone has written to you about your name, or you're thinking of writing to them, we can help with the cease and desist letter and the steps after it. Once you're registered, trademark monitoring keeps watch for names that come too close.
For our view on what these cases mean for your own filing and renewal decisions, read Can You Own a Common Word? What Sky's Trademark Fights Teach Brand Owners.
Book a free call, email enquiries@thetrademarkhelpline.com or ring 0161 833 5400.
Related questions
This page is for information purposes only and does not constitute trademark advice or guidance. Case summaries are drawn from published UK judgments; summaries drafted with AI assistance and checked by The Trademark Helpline (how we write these). Company details from Companies House; trademark count from the UK trademark register. Last reviewed 31 October 2026. Report an error.
