Update on Interflora vs Marks & Spencer AdWords trademark row

by Patrick Altoft on September 2, 2009

Everybody is keeping a close eye on the Interflora vs Marks & Spencer case which we first covered back in December. Unlike a lot of other similar cases this one will probably go the distance simply because of the brands involved.

The latest update has a screenshot which shows M&S are still bidding on the Interflora keyword – there are no other PPC ads showing for me which indicates nobody else wants to get involved.

Interflora vs Marks & Spencers

If this case goes the distance the implications for brand bidding could be quite significant.

The High Court in London has decided that the law is not settled on whether brand bidding on a competitor’s brand is lawful and has referred certain questions to the European Court of Justice for determination. This clearly goes against Marks and Spencer’s position that the practice is “not unlawful”. The High Court has denied Marks & Spencer permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal in respect of the nature of the questions referred to the European Court of Justice.

In his judgement, Mr Justice Arnold commented that Google’s decision to operate a different policy in the UK and Ireland to that in the rest of Europe is “fairly remarkable given that the relevant law is, or should be, essentially the same throughout Europe.”

Patrick Altoft is Director of Search at Leeds based digital & SEO agency Branded3. Patrick also runs Blogstorm.

You can get our blog posts delivered for free by email every day - simply add your email address to the box below or alternatively grab the RSS feed.

Read some similar posts

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

{ 16 comments… read them below or add one }

Stefan 02 Sep 2009 at 4:05 pm
Find me on Flickr | StumbleUpon | Twitter

Should it not be up too Google to decide this? I mean, it’s their service.

More comments from Stefan
Greg Power 02 Sep 2009 at 4:55 pm

I’ve just done the same search for Interflora and there’s also a PPC ad for flowers-for-all-occasions.co.uk – anyone else?

Nicholas 02 Sep 2009 at 6:47 pm
Find me on Twitter

Yep I see flowers-for-all-occasions.co.uk too

More comments from Nicholas
Patrick Altoft 02 Sep 2009 at 6:53 pm
Find me on Twitter

Google can’t really decide whether something is legal or not.

More comments from Patrick Altoft
Dave Ashworth 03 Sep 2009 at 9:57 am
Find me on Twitter

How does this work exactly? I have limited experience with AdWords though recently set up a PPC campaign for a mobile phone provider where I set up ads for a BlackBerry/Vodafone promotion – as it turns out I was able to include Blackberry in the ads but not Vodafone due to trademarks – so there appears to me to be something in place already, though is this only for certain brands??

More comments from Dave Ashworth
Patrick Altoft 03 Sep 2009 at 10:31 am
Find me on Twitter

You can’t include a trademarked term in the ad text (blackberry must have slipped through because it’s also a real word). M&S is bidding on the keyword “interflora” but isn’t using it in the advert text – this is allowed by Google but Interflora doesn’t like it.

More comments from Patrick Altoft
Dave Ashworth 11 Sep 2009 at 9:59 am
Find me on Twitter

I can see this one falling in the favour of M&S – reason being, many people use a brand name when searching for a type of service – it’s plausible that someone would type “interflora” when searchING for a “home delivery service for flowers” as it’s easier and quicker to type, M&S would probably argue that they are alerting searchers that they too offer such a service. This came to me when watching an old episode of Alan Partridge:

“Error two, right, Frankenstein is a zombie. He’s a type of zombie. It’s like people who say Tannoy when they mean public-address system. Tannoy is a brand name”

“Error two, right, Frankenstein is a zombie. He’s a type of zombie. It’s like people who say Tannoy when they mean public-address system. Tannoy is a brand name”

It’s quite plausible that people would use a brand name when searching for a particular service.

More comments from Dave Ashworth
Jo 04 Nov 2009 at 10:34 am

But the point of a brand name (or trade mark) is to identify just one trader’s products or service out of all of the competing ones on offer, rather than a “type” of product or service.

A brand name is desirable because of the goodwill and reputation its owner has built up by careful marketing and investment. Taking advantage of this without permission is contrary to UK trade mark laws. The brand itself is also endangered if others, especially competitors, are allowed to use it as a generic term e.g. linoleum, escalator.

Of interest, Google has published Guidelines for Third Party Use of Google Brand Features to try and prevent its own name from becoming a generic term :

“If trademarks are not used properly, they may be lost and one of the company’s most important assets may lose all of its value. Rights may be lost not only because of a trademark owner’s improper use of the mark, but through improper use of the trademark by the public. ”
http://www.google.co.uk/permissions/guidelines.html

It’s a tough one for the Court in Marks & Spencer as it has to be seen to be balancing interests of the consumer with brand owners but it should be remembered that trade mark laws exist to protect the consumer as well.

I think that the only way around it is for the Court to base the decision on who is deemed to be “using” the trade mark that is the Adword but can it ignore the fact that it is a profit-making activity?

Jo

Helen Catterall 11 Jan 2010 at 3:01 pm

This is yet another case of the law failing to keep up with the marketplace, and it is no surprise that this dispute has rumbled on, bearing in mind the involvement of Google and Marks and Spencer. Surely, the whole area of online advertising is in need of a legislative review so that this kind of dispute can be prevented before it begins.

darryl skelton 28 Jan 2010 at 7:33 pm

Trademark laws exist to protect the consumer, in this case M&S do not claim, suggest or in anyway appear to be interflora they make clear exactly who they are. The consumer is not being misled in anyway. If a brand name calling themselves interflorer were to advertise using interflora as a keyword then maybe people could be misled.

As long as M&S don’t mind others doing similar when searching on google for their products it would seem ok. Trademark law is not the same as copyright or patent protection.

lucy may 05 May 2010 at 5:22 pm

If your cornfield is far from your house the birds will eat your corn.

Electronics Promotion 09 May 2010 at 7:52 pm

I know this is not really related to current conversation but i think that this will benefit all readers and moders, there is a site where you complete survey and opt-in for chance to win free stuff like electronics, ipods, laptops, iphone and stuff like that adress is http://www.freemac.net.tc Enjoy and i hope you win free stuff.

nail care 11 May 2010 at 10:43 am

Thanks very much ,not only for this post but also for his all previous efforts. I will be coming back here.

love my bikes 13 May 2010 at 1:01 pm

This post has got some really good information thanks.

Moerts 19 May 2010 at 8:03 pm

This we have already seen somewhere :)

itthonot 27 May 2010 at 5:38 pm

I supposed that you will certainly receive many free traffics from others promoting your atcile in the process.

{ 1 trackback }

Friday 5: Puma, Waldorf Babers, Website Planning, Footgasms & AdWords Trademarks | Barry Hand
09.18.09 at 5:08 am

Leave a Comment (registration is optional)

Registration is free, takes about 5 seconds and is worth doing.

You can use these HTML tags and attributes:
<a href=""> <b> <blockquote> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>