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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll