Comments on: Update on Interflora vs Marks & Spencer AdWords trademark row

By: itthonot

itthonot — Thu, 27 May 2010 16:38:59 +0000

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

By: Moerts

Moerts — Wed, 19 May 2010 19:03:01 +0000

This we have already seen somewhere

By: love my bikes

love my bikes — Thu, 13 May 2010 12:01:57 +0000

This post has got some really good information thanks.

By: nail care

nail care — Tue, 11 May 2010 09:43:09 +0000

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

By: Electronics Promotion

Electronics Promotion — Sun, 09 May 2010 18:52:31 +0000

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.

By: lucy may

lucy may — Wed, 05 May 2010 16:22:33 +0000

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

By: darryl skelton

darryl skelton — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 18:33:43 +0000

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.

By: Helen Catterall

Helen Catterall — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 14:01:18 +0000

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.

By: Jo

Jo — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 09:34:21 +0000

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?

By: Friday 5: Puma, Waldorf Babers, Website Planning, Footgasms & AdWords Trademarks | Barry Hand

Fri, 18 Sep 2009 04:08:07 +0000

[...] an eye on this one, as it will surely have implications on brand bidding in [...]