Sky v SkyKick: judge refuses to revisit the ruling and sets CJEU questions
SkyvSkykick UK
- Court
- High Court
- Judgment
- 27 April 2018
- Citation
- [2018] EWHC 943 (Ch)
Disagreeing with a judgment is grounds for an appeal, not for asking the same judge to think again.
After a lengthy trademark ruling against it, Sky asked the judge to reconsider parts of the decision rather than appeal. The judge refused, saying disagreement with a ruling is not a reason to ask for it to be changed.
What happened
This ruling followed the main Sky v SkyKick trademark judgment, in which the judge had made findings on trademark validity, bad faith and infringement. Sky, unhappy with parts of that outcome, applied for the judge to reconsider or clarify some of the reasoning before deciding whether to appeal, and also asked for permission to appeal and a stay. SkyKick, separately, wanted more time to appeal one finding that had gone against it. This judgment deals only with those follow-up applications, not with the substance of the trademark dispute itself.
What did the court decide in Sky v Skykick UK?
The judge held that simply disagreeing with conclusions already reached was not a proper basis to ask for reconsideration or "amplification" of the judgment. That route was for the Court of Appeal, through an application for permission to appeal, not for the trial judge to revisit. Sky's requests for permission to appeal and for a stay were refused. The judge finalised the wording of five questions to send to the CJEU about how clear a trademark's list of goods and services needs to be, and about bad faith in registration. SkyKick's request for extra time to appeal one adverse finding was also refused.
What we learned from this
- What I'd take from this is that once a judge has ruled, that same judge is very unlikely to change the decision just because a party keeps arguing the same points. If you think a ruling is wrong, the route is an appeal.
- Asking for 'clarification' or 'amplification' of a judgment is not a way to reopen findings you simply dislike.
- Where a case is heading to a reference to the EU court, the court may prefer to let that process move quickly rather than pause everything for a possible appeal.
- A party that misses or needs more time to appeal a specific finding cannot assume extra time will be given automatically.
Things to be aware of
- This judgment is about procedure and next steps, not about who was right on trademark validity, bad faith or infringement. Those issues were decided in the earlier Main Judgment.
- The CJEU questions set here were about clarity of trademark specifications and bad faith, and answers to those questions shaped much of the later litigation.
- This case ran on for years after this ruling, through further High Court decisions and eventually the Supreme Court, so this stage was far from the end of the story.
The businesses involved
Sky Plc
UK media and telecommunications group, registered in 1988 and based in Middlesex, holding a very large portfolio of 471 trademarks on the UK trademark register covering its SKY-branded services.
- Companies House
- 02247735 Active
- Incorporated
- April 1988
- Registered office
- Middlesex
- Business activity
- Activities of head offices
- UK trademarks
- 471
Skykick UK Ltd
UK subsidiary of SkyKick Inc, a company providing cloud migration and management software and services for Microsoft Office 365, sued by Sky for trademark infringement.
What happened next
- The CJEU issued a preliminary ruling on the questions referred in this litigation, concerning bad faith and lack of clarity in trademark specifications.Source: Eur Lex
- Following the CJEU reference, the High Court ruled in 2020 to limit the specification of goods and services in Sky's trademarks and addressed infringement.Source: Practical Law (Thomson Reuters), April 2020
- The dispute continued for years, eventually reaching the UK Supreme Court, which handed down its judgment in November 2024 clarifying how far companies can register broad trademark specifications without acting in bad faith.Source: ICLG, November 2024
- After the Supreme Court ruling, the UK Intellectual Property Office issued guidance for trademark applicants reflecting the Supreme Court's findings in the case.Source: Gov, June 2025
- Commentary following the Supreme Court decision noted that English courts have since begun trimming overly broad trademark specifications in line with the ruling.Source: The Global Legal Post, September 2025
What others said about it
- IPKat notes the Supreme Court's eventual ruling confirmed that overly broad trademark registrations can be found invalid for bad faith, a point that traces back to the questions set at this stage.Source: IPKat, November 2024
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: [2018] EWHC 943 (Ch) 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.
