header-logo header-logo

‘Bad faith’ trademarks in peril

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

Myers & Co—Jen Goodwin

Myers & Co—Jen Goodwin

Head of corporate promoted to director

Boies Schiller Flexner—Lindsay Reimschussel

Boies Schiller Flexner—Lindsay Reimschussel

Firm strengthens international arbitration team with key London hire

Corker Binning—Priya Dave

Corker Binning—Priya Dave

FCA contentious financial regulation lawyer joins the team as of counsel

NEWS
Social media giants should face tortious liability for the psychological harms their platforms inflict, argues Harry Lambert of Outer Temple Chambers in this week’s NLJ
The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024—once heralded as a breakthrough—has instead plunged leaseholders into confusion, warns Shabnam Ali-Khan of Russell-Cooke in this week’s NLJ
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has now confirmed that offering a disabled employee a trial period in an alternative role can itself be a 'reasonable adjustment' under the Equality Act 2010: in this week's NLJ, Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve analyses the evolving case law
Caroline Shea KC and Richard Miller of Falcon Chambers examine the growing judicial focus on 'cynical breach' in restrictive covenant cases, in this week's issue of NLJ
Ian Gascoigne of LexisNexis dissects the uneasy balance between open justice and confidentiality in England’s civil courts, in this week's NLJ. From public hearings to super-injunctions, he identifies five tiers of privacy—from fully open proceedings to entirely secret ones—showing how a patchwork of exceptions has evolved without clear design
back-to-top-scroll