CELEX: 62018CN0371
Language: en
Date: 2018-06-06 00:00:00
Title: Case C-371/18: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 6 June 2018 — Sky plc, Sky International AG, Sky UK Limited v Skykick UK Limited, Skykick Inc

201807200082013502018/C 276/363712018CJC27620180806EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180606272822Case C-371/18: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 6 June 2018 — Sky plc, Sky International AG, Sky UK Limited v Skykick UK Limited, Skykick Inc
 ---documentbreak--- C2762018EN2720120180606EN0036272282Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 6 June 2018 — Sky plc, Sky International AG, Sky UK Limited v Skykick UK Limited, Skykick Inc
   (Case C-371/18)2018/C 276/36Language of the case: English
      Referring court
   
   High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicants: Sky plc, Sky International AG, Sky UK Limited
   
      Defendants: Skykick UK Limited, Skykick Inc
   
      Questions referred
   
   
            1.
         
         
            Can an EU trade mark or a national trade mark registered in a Member State be declared wholly or partially invalid on the ground that some or all of the terms in the specification of goods and services are lacking in sufficient clarity and precision to enable the competent authorities and third parties to determine on the basis of those terms alone the extent of the protection conferred by the trade mark?
         
      
            2.
         
         
            If the answer to question (1) is yes, is a term such as ‘computer software’ too general and covers goods which are too variable to be compatible with the trade mark's function as an indication of origin for that term to be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the competent authorities and third parties to determine on the basis of that term alone the extent of the protection conferred by the trade mark?
         
      
            3.
         
         
            Can it constitute bad faith simply to apply to register a trade mark without any intention to use it in relation to the specified goods or services?
         
      
            4.
         
         
            If the answer to question (3) is yes, is it possible to conclude that the applicant made the application partly in good faith and partly in bad faith if and to the extent that the applicant had an intention to use the trade mark in relation to some of the specified goods or services, but no intention to use the trade mark in relation to other specified goods or services?
         
      
            5.
         
         
            Is section 32(3) of the UK Trade Marks Act 1994 compatible with Parliament and Council Directive 2015/2436/EU (
                  1
               ) and its predecessors?
         
      (
         1
      )	Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 2015, L 336, p. 1).