Change in UKIPO practice following the SkyKick judgment

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in SkyKick, the UKIPO issued guidance on 27 June 2025 in Practice Amendment Notice (PAN) 1/25. It clarifies the behaviour expected of applicants applying for trade marks in relation to the scope of goods and/or services for which protection is being sought. 

The Skykick case focused on bad faith in trade mark filings. The judgment provides guidance on the validity of a trade mark that has been filed in respect of an overly broad specification of goods and services, or an overly broad term within it, taking into account whether the applicant had a genuine intention to use the trade mark to the extent claimed.  

Applicants should be acting in good faith to seek registration for goods/services that fairly reflect their business. They should be cautious about filing specifications covering large numbers of goods and services in multiple classes, particularly where the claimed terms are broad and/or include the use of class headings.

Given the change in practice, we may see an increase in examiners raising objections on the grounds of bad faith where a specification is “manifestly and self-evidently broad”. This would include:

1. Specifications covering all 45 classes.
2. Specifications covering all goods in class 9 (which includes a significant range of goods related to technology, science, information processing and software).
3. Other situations deemed appropriate by the examiner.

This serves as a helpful reminder of the importance of carefully crafting a specification that strikes a balance between obtaining the scope of protection required to protect a business, and being overly broad. 

It is worth noting that there will be no automatic objection to general terms such as clothing or computer software, but applicants should “carefully consider what is appropriate for their intended use”. If a bad faith objection is raised, applicants will have two months to respond, either by justifying the scope of their specification or amending it.

While the guidance is primarily aimed at examination procedure, it also applies to opponents and cancellation applicants. Relying on overbroad specifications in opposition and cancellation actions may lead to counterclaims based on bad faith so careful consideration should be given to decide the breadth of such actions.

The full PAN 1/25 can be accessed on the UKIPO’s website.

If you would like to discuss what this means for protecting your brand, or trade mark protection more generally, please email us: gje@gje.com.