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

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

North west team expands with senior private client and property hires

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Firm boosts corporate team in Newcastle to support high-growth technology businesses

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll