header-logo header-logo

20 November 2024
Issue: 8095 / Categories: Legal News , Intellectual property
printer mail-detail

‘Bad faith’ trademarks in peril

The Supreme Court has clarified the role of ‘bad faith’ in invalidating trademarks, in a dispute between a broadcaster and IT company over the word ‘Sky’.

In a unanimous decision, SkyKick UK & anor v Sky Ltd & anor [2024] UKSC 36, the court held Sky, the broadcaster, did not have a genuine intention to use the trademark for all the goods and services for which it sought protection, and therefore acted in bad faith.

Delivering judgment, Lord Kitchin said bad faith may occur where an application is made not with the aim of engaging fairly in competition but in order to undermine the interests of third parties or to obtain an exclusive right.

Prior to the decision, it was uncertain what type of behaviour constituted ‘bad faith’.

Jim Dennis, partner at Simkins, said: ‘This decision will curtail the ability of businesses to prevent others from using trademarks in respect of goods and services that they themselves cannot justify having registered.

‘As such it will support competition in the marketplace and be broadly welcomed by smaller businesses. Trademark owners and practitioners, on the other hand, will certainly need to think harder about whether their applied-for list of goods and services is justifiable, and adopt greater caution in how they present infringement cases to the court, for fear of losing their trademark protection.’

The decision has ‘sent shockwaves’ through trademark law, said Kerry Russell, partner at Shakespeare Martineau.

However, she cautioned that ‘businesses should remember that in order to invalidate a trade mark, there is a robust and often costly procedure to follow’. Businesses wishing to attack a trademark for being too broad must show the application was intended to undermine the rights of a third party or sought to obtain a right beyond the trademark’s essential function, she said.

‘The Supreme Court has said that this argument is only applicable where there are “objective, relevant and consistent” indications that the mark was applied for in bad faith.’

Fladgate partner Mark Buckley said ‘lessons to be taken away’ included the need to document why the applicant for a putative use trademark intends to use that trademark.

Issue: 8095 / Categories: Legal News , Intellectual property
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Chief information officer appointment strengthens technology leadership

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Firm strengthens Wilmslow team with two solicitor appointments

DWF—Ian Plumley

DWF—Ian Plumley

Londoninsurance and reinsurance practice announces partner appointment

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll