United Kingdom IPO Issues Trade Mark Guidance Post SkyKick

Imagine a trade mark register as a neighborhood. If one house keeps “reserving” every parking spot on the streetjust in casethey might not be breaking the laws of physics, but they’re definitely breaking the spirit of being a decent neighbor. In 2025, the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) basically posted a polite-but-firm sign on that street: Stop overclaiming. And yes, it’s connected to the headline-making SkyKick v Sky trade mark battle.

On June 27, 2025, the UKIPO issued new guidance (including Practice Amendment Notice (PAN) 1/25) explaining what it expects from trade mark applicants after the UK Supreme Court’s decision in SkyKick UK Ltd v Sky Ltd. The theme is simple: your goods and services list should match a real commercial plannot your wildest “maybe someday we’ll sell biofuels” dreams.

This article breaks down what the SkyKick decision changed, what the UKIPO guidance actually says, and how brand owners (especially companies filing from the U.S.) can draft smarter, safer UK trade mark specifications going forwardwithout turning your application into a 45-class “everything bagel.”

Why This Guidance Matters (Even If You’re Not a TV Giant Named Sky)

Trade mark protection is powerful. It can block others from registering similar marks and can be used offensively in disputes. But it’s supposed to protect marks used (or genuinely intended to be used) for specific goods and servicesnot act as a legal force field around your brand name for everything anyone might ever do.

The UK has long allowed filing without proving use up front. That’s convenient, but it can be abused. The Supreme Court flagged that reality in SkyKick, and the UKIPO’s 2025 guidance is the Office’s way of turning that court-level principle into day-to-day filing behavior.

SkyKick v Sky in Plain English: What Happened?

The players

• Sky: the well-known UK broadcaster/telecom brand with trade marks for “SKY.”
• SkyKick: a cloud and email migration business (with a U.S. connection) accused of infringement.

The punchline

The UK Supreme Court delivered its judgment on November 13, 2024 ([2024] UKSC 36). It accepted that overly broad specifications can support a finding of bad faithand that a registration can be partially invalidated for the “too broad” parts, rather than automatically nuked entirely.

In other words: you can’t safely register a mark for a massive menu of goods/services if you never intended to use it that broadlyespecially if the breadth looks like it’s meant to intimidate or block others.

“Bad Faith” After SkyKick: Not a Vibe, a Legal Problem

“Bad faith” isn’t the same as “oops, we made the list too broad.” The Supreme Court framed it around motives and conduct that depart from honest commercial practices and the purposes of the trade mark system. The UKIPO’s PAN echoes that framing and focuses on situations where a filing is used as a strategic weapon rather than a legitimate brand protection tool.

So what does bad faith look like in this context?

• Claiming goods/services with no genuine intention to use the mark for them.
• Using breadth to block others from unobjectionable activity (brand “land-grabbing”).
• Cluttering the register so clearance becomes a nightmare for everyone else.

And here’s the key nuance: the Court did not say you must have products on shelves at filing. Businesses can plan, pivot, expand, and test markets. But there still needs to be a real commercial rationale behind what you claim.

What the UKIPO Issued in 2025: PAN 1/25 and Applicant Guidance

On June 27, 2025, the UKIPO published:

• Public-facing guidance on what to expect during examination post-SkyKick.
• PAN 1/25 (statutory guidance) explaining expected applicant behavior and how examiners will handle broad specifications.

The most important shift is procedural and practical: UKIPO examiners will now raise bad faith objections during examination when a specification is so broad it looks “manifestly and self-evidently” excessive.

The “automatic trigger” situations

According to the UKIPO guidance, certain filings will consistently attract objections, including:

• Claims covering all 45 Nice classes (the full universe of trademark classes).
• Claims covering all goods in Class 9 (a famously wide class covering many tech/science/info processing goods).

Broad terms aren’t automatically banned (yet)

The UKIPO also makes a practical point that matters for real-world filing: it will not automatically object to broad terms like “computer software” or “clothing” in every case. But applicants are warned to think carefully about whether a narrower subcategory better matches intended use.

What Happens If You Get a Bad Faith Objection?

The UKIPO’s post-SkyKick guidance makes the process pretty straightforward (even if the consequences aren’t):

1. You get an objection during examination if the specification looks manifestly overbroad.
2. You generally have two months to respond.
3. You can respond by:
   • Explaining your commercial rationale for the breadth, or
   • Restricting the goods/services so the claim better matches actual plans.
4. If the examiner isn’t persuaded, you still have normal procedural options, including being heard and/or appealing.

Translation: you don’t have to panic, but you do need to be ready. If your filing strategy is “we’ll claim everything now and sort it out later,” the UKIPO is basically saying: “Cool storyplease provide receipts.”

The Drafting Problem: When “Broad” Becomes “Implausible”

Most trade mark owners aren’t trying to be villains. They’re trying to future-proof. But post-SkyKick, the safest approach is a Goldilocks specification:

• Not so narrow that you can’t grow.
• Not so broad that it looks like a defensive monopoly play.
• Just rightanchored to a credible business roadmap.

Example: A SaaS company filing in Class 9 and Class 42

Too broad (riskier):

• Class 9: “Computer software.”
• Class 42: “Computer services.”

Better (more defensible):

• Class 9: “Downloadable software for email migration, cloud data backup, and IT administration.”
• Class 42: “Software as a service (SaaS) featuring software for email migration, cloud backup, and cybersecurity monitoring.”

Best (future-friendly but still rational):

• Include adjacent features you genuinely intend to build (e.g., “identity management,” “data loss prevention”), but avoid unrelated categories you have no plan to enter.

Notice what’s happening: you’re still protecting future product evolutionbut in a way that looks like a real plan, not a corporate shopping spree.

How to Build a “Commercial Rationale” That Doesn’t Sound Like You Made It Up on the Bus

The UKIPO’s message is that breadth should be explainable. “Because we want strong protection” is not a commercial rationale; that’s a mood.

More defensible rationales tend to connect goods/services to business reality, like:

• Product roadmap: planned modules or versions you genuinely intend to launch.
• Market adjacency: natural expansion areas (e.g., from streaming to broadband hardwarebut not suddenly to bleach).
• Licensing model: plans to license the mark for specific goods/services (with real negotiations or strategy).
• Corporate structure: a group company strategy where different affiliates genuinely plan to use the mark in related sectors.

Pro tip for U.S. brand owners: This feels a lot like the practical discipline U.S. applicants already face when identifying goods/servicesclear, understandable descriptions are rewarded, while vague or “miscellaneous” language can create problems.

What This Means for Oppositions, Cancellations, and Enforcement

PAN 1/25 is mainly about examination, but it also sends signals to anyone in disputes. The UKIPO explicitly reminds parties in tribunal proceedings that relying on very broad specifications can invite counterclaims that the registration was filed in bad faith (at least to the extent of the overbreadth).

This changes strategy in a few ways:

• Choose your “best” registrations when enforcingones you can defend without awkward explanations.
• Portfolio audits matter: if older registrations contain sprawling lists, think about how they’d look under SkyKick logic.
• Be cautious with class headings and ultra-general termsespecially when your company profile makes certain categories look implausible.

In fact, practitioners have already seen courts narrow broad “software” coverage to reflect the claimant’s actual business area in later disputessuggesting that “computer software” isn’t a magical spell anymore; it’s a conversation starter.

Why U.S. Companies Should Care (Even If the Trademark Is “Just for the UK”)

If you’re a U.S.-based business expanding into the UK, SkyKick-era practice matters because it affects:

• Filing strategy: you may need to customize UK specs rather than copy-pasting from another jurisdiction.
• Budget planning: narrower, more thoughtful class coverage can actually reduce costs and friction.
• Risk management: broad “defensive filings” can become liabilities if challenged later.

And there’s a mindset shift: instead of asking, “What’s the biggest list we can get away with?” the better question is, “What list will still look reasonable if a judge reads it out loud in five years?”

Quick Checklist: A Post-SkyKick UK Filing That Won’t Make Examiners Sigh

• Anchor every class to a real product, service, or credible near-term plan.
• Prefer subcategories over mega-terms when your business is specialized.
• Avoid “all 45 classes” energy unless you enjoy objections.
• Be extra careful in Class 9it’s broad, and the UKIPO calls it out specifically.
• Keep internal documentation (roadmaps, strategy decks, licensing plans) in case you need to explain scope later.
• Use enforcement-friendly registrations: if you wouldn’t defend it under cross-examination, don’t rely on it in a dispute.

Important note: This is general information, not legal advice. Trade mark strategy depends heavily on facts, jurisdictions, and business plans.

Bonus: Real-World Experiences from the Post-SkyKick Filing Era (About )

Since the UKIPO published PAN 1/25, a few consistent “real life” patterns have been popping up across brand teams and filing strategiesespecially among companies used to global template filings.

1) The copy-and-paste application is finally getting benched. A lot of businesses historically used one master goods/services list and dropped it into every country with minimal edits. It was efficient, but it also created “Frankenstein” specsperfectly reasonable in one jurisdiction, oddly aggressive in another. Post-SkyKick, teams are treating the UK like its own living ecosystem. Instead of cloning a filing drafted for a different office, they’re tailoring it to the UK’s new reality: if the scope looks implausible against the company’s actual business, it’s a risk.

2) “Computer software” is still commonbut it’s no longer a free pass. Many tech companies love “computer software” because it feels like buying the whole buffet with one plate. In practice, teams are learning that a slightly more specific description can be stronger, not weaker. Why? Because it’s easier to defend. When you can point to a roadmap, a beta program, or a defined product category, the specification reads like a real commercial plan. That’s the vibe examiners and tribunals can work with. “Everything software” reads more like a legal tactic than a business intention.

3) Big companies are rethinking how they future-proof. The common fear is: “If we narrow now, we’ll lose expansion space later.” But many brand owners are shifting from one giant filing to a layered strategy: a solid core application that clearly matches current offerings, paired with follow-on filings as new product lines become more concrete. It’s not as glamorous as a mega-filing, but it can be more resilientespecially if disputes arise.

4) The best internal habit is simple documentation. Teams that already keep product plans, strategy memos, or licensing discussions organized feel far less stressed. If an examiner questions scope, it’s easier to respond with a coherent explanation when your rationale isn’t trapped in someone’s head (or lost in a Slack thread from 2023). The goal isn’t to create paperwork for fun. It’s to preserve the business logic behind the filing so the trade mark record tells a consistent story.

5) Enforcement teams are getting pickierin a good way. One quiet post-SkyKick change is that companies are more cautious about relying on very broad registrations in disputes. Even if a broad registration exists, using it aggressively can invite a counterattack: “Was this filed in bad faith?” So brand owners are increasingly choosing registrations that match real use and can survive scrutiny. It’s less about having the biggest stick and more about having a stick you’re actually allowed to carry.

The overall experience so far: PAN 1/25 doesn’t kill strong brand protection. It just rewards filings that look like honest commercebecause, in the end, that’s what trade marks are supposed to signal.