CJEU Delivers Decision in Sky v. Skykick | Trademark owners still get a (sky)kick out of broad specifications

Your contact

The much-anticipated Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) decision in C-371/18 Sky v. SkyKick was delivered on 29 January 2020. While a source of relief to trademark owners enabling them to continue to file broad specifications on the one hand without having to fear US style sanctions, the decision raises questions as to the practical implications in respect of bad faith being grounds to either wholly or partially invalidate a registered trademark, which is absent an intention to use goods and services encompassing very broad terms.

A Quick Recap

Sky Plc, the well-known broadcaster, is the owner of a large worldwide portfolio of trademarks, which it actively enforces based on particularly broad specifications of goods and service, with some registrations containing specifications with a word count of 8,000+ words and for an extremely wide range of goods and services from software to bleaching products to whips (para 4).

SkyKick is a software company offering small- and medium-sized businesses email migration and cloud backup Software as a Service (SaaS) products. Sky initiated a claim against SkyKick for trademark infringement and passing off in the UK.

While Sky’s infringement claim was held to be partially successful on the basis that “SkyKick” is sufficiently similar to Sky’s “Sky” mark for goods and services covered by its registrations, SkyKick counterclaimed by way of a validity attack resulting in the then Mr Justice Arnold (now Lord Justice Arnold) referring a series of questions to the CJEU focusing primarily on the following:

    1. Is a lack of clarity and precision in a trademark specification a ground to invalidate a trademark?
    2. Is it bad faith to register a trademark without any intention to use it in relation to the specified goods and services?

The ECJ Decision

In response to the first question, the CJEU held that EU or national trademarks cannot be declared wholly or partially invalid on the grounds that terms used to designate the goods and services lack clarity and precision. In addition, the Court’s decision concluded that such a lack of clarity and precision in specifications cannot be considered to be contrary to public policy concerning Article 7 (1)(f) of Regulation No 40/94 and Article 3(1)(f) of First Directive 89/104 and cannot be capable of invalidating a trademark.

Regarding the second question concerning whether a trademark application filed without any intention to use the mark in relation to the goods and services claimed constitutes bad faith, the Court notes that bad faith is an autonomous concept of EU law with no clear definition provided. The Court associates the concept of bad faith as pre-supposing a presence of a dishonest state of mind or intention specific to abusing trademark law and working against the source indicating function of trademarks. Accordingly, the CJEU does not deem a trademark application to have been made in bad faith where an applicant had no economic activity corresponding to the goods and services at the time they applied for the mark. Unsurprisingly, the bad faith threshold thus remains high and will apply:

if there is objective, relevant and consistent indicia tending to show that, when the application for a trade mark was filed, the trade mark application had the intention either of undermining, in a manner inconsistent with honest practices, the interests of third parties, or of obtaining, without even targeting a specific third party, an exclusive right for purposes other than those falling within the functions of a trade mark. (para. 77)

When an absence of intention to use only concerns certain goods and services, bad faith only applies in so far as it relates to those goods and services.


The ECJ comes as a bit of a surprise as it negates the opinion from Advocate General Tanchev’s opinion from October 2019, where he expressed the view that general specification terms like “computer software” are unjustified and contrary to public interest because they confer on the proprietor a monopoly of immense breadth which cannot be justified by any legitimate interest of the proprietor (para. 79 of the AG’s opinion).

An initial interpretation of the ECJ decision suggests that trademarks registered for a range of goods and services designated in a manner lacking clarity and precision can be revoked only after the 5-year period in so far as they have not been put to use. Such rationale is good news to trademark proprietors.

Of note is the Court’s silence on how the decision will affect trademark practices such as re-registering trademarks after the expiry of the 5-year term with identical details to earlier registrations, thus circumventing the obligation to prove use (so-called evergreening). In this respect, the ECJ decision should not be regarded as an invitation for trademark owners to continue to re-register and rely on very broad specifications with terms such as “computer software” and “telecommunications services” but rather to closely keep an eye on broad terms which become increasingly vulnerable for attack after the 5-year period.

For sure, the definition of “bad faith” filings will continue to challenge the trademark community. And as we will probably not receive much more guidance from the ECJ, it will be up to the Boards of Appeal of the EUIPO and to the national courts to develop a helpful check-list.

Share post

most read


MLL Legal

MLL Legal is one of the leading law firms in Switzerland with offices in Zurich, Geneva, Zug, Lausanne, London and Madrid. We advise our clients in all areas of business law and stand out in particular for our first-class industry expertise in technical-innovative specialist areas, but also in regulated industries.

MLL Meyerlustenberger Lachenal Froriep


Much is still unclear in relation to liability questions around AI tools.

Read our latest post about “Liability during the Lifecycle of an AI Tool” and download our white paper.

Show article.

Our Story

MLL Legal is a leading Swiss law firm with a history that dates back to 1885. The firm has grown both organically and by means of strategic mergers, the latest of which took place on 1st July 2021 between Meyerlustenberger Lachenal and FRORIEP.

The merger establishes MLL Legal, a combined new entity as one of the largest commercial law firms in Switzerland with 150 lawyers in four offices in Switzerland and two offices abroad, in London and Madrid serving clients seeking Swiss law advice.

Our firm has a strong international profile and brings together recognised leadership and expertise in all areas of law affecting commerce today, with a focus on high-tech, innovative and regulated sectors. 

About us


Click here for our latest publications


Read all our legal updates on the impact of COVID-19 for businesses.

COVID-19 Information

Job openings

Looking for a new challenge?

Our talented and ambitious teams are motivated by a common vision to succeed. We value open and straightforward communication accross all levels of the organisation in a supportive working environment.

Job openings

Firm News

Click here for our latest firm news.

Our Team

The regulatory and technological landscape continually require businesses to adapt and evolve.
Our 150+ lawyers are continuously innovating and striving for improvement in everything they do. We embrace new ideas and technologies, combining our wealth of expertise with creative thinking and diligence. With our hands-on approach, we implement viable solutions for the most complex legal challenges.

Our Team.

LexCast – the podcast series by MLL NexGen

Smart legal education on the go. The LexCast hosted by MLL NexGen provides legal insights in a short format that allows listeners to educate themselves on and about legal issues wherever they are and whenever they find the time.

Listen to our podcast series – stay tuned.

MLL Legal on Social Media

Follow us on LinkedIn, Twitter und Instagram.