Skyscape Cloud Services Ltd v Sky Plc & Ors

Skyscape Cloud Services Ltd v Sky Plc & Ors

Skyscape failed to prove that its use of 'Skyscape' for email services would not infringe the SKY mark under Article 9(1)(b) due to likelihood of confusion among average consumers, and failed to establish absence of unfair advantage or detriment under Article 9(1)(c). The application for a declaration of non-infringement was dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: Skyscape Cloud Services Limited; Defendant: Sky Plc; Defendant: Sky UK Limited; Defendant: Sky International AG
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Intellectual Property (trade Mark) / Judgment on Application for Declaration of Non Infringement
Outcome
Application for declaration of non-infringement dismissed
Legal Topics
Trade Marks, Declaration of Non Infringement, Likelihood of Confusion, Reputation and Distinctiveness, Unfair Advantage, Detriment to Distinctive Character
Intellectual Property Trade Marks Declaration of Non Infringement Likelihood of Confusion Reputation and Distinctiveness Unfair Advantage Detriment to Distinctive Character

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Skyscape Cloud Services Limited

Claimant

Sky Plc

Defendant

Sky UK Limited

Defendant

Sky International AG

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Intellectual Property (trade Mark) / Judgment on Application for Declaration of Non Infringement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Skyscape's use of 'Skyscape' infringes Sky's registered trade marks under Article 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(c) of the Trade Mark Regulation
  2. 2 Whether a declaration of non-infringement should be granted to Skyscape

Ratio Decidendi

Skyscape failed to prove that its use of 'Skyscape' for email services would not infringe the SKY mark under Article 9(1)(b) due to likelihood of confusion among average consumers, and failed to establish absence of unfair advantage or detriment under Article 9(1)(c). The application for a declaration of non-infringement was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for declaration of non-infringement dismissed