Toggle sidebar

Interflora sues Marks & Spencer over Google ad links

  • Thread starter Thread starter harryboon
  • Start date Start date
Sort by date Sort by votes
I agree however surely their legal team would have said to stop the ads until case is sorted out

Maybe not but if someone was taking me to court I would stop unless I was very sure I was going to win.



SteveGibson said:
Google allows them to bid, so they assume it's ok to bid.

Morally, why should there be a problem? It's people looking for flowers, which is what they're selling. They're not passing off and they're not slagging off Interflora, they're just advertising their wares to people searching on Google.

Steve
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
harryboon said:
I agree however surely their legal team would have said to stop the ads until case is sorted out

Maybe not but if someone was taking me to court I would stop unless I was very sure I was going to win.
Click to expand...

Stopping the ads would probably be seen as an admission of wrong doing.
 
Upvote 0
OK so we have all discussed this issue for the last few days, and thank you to everyone who has joined in.

So what do we think is going to happen?

Interflora will win or lose - Yes or No?

Can we do polls on here?
 
Upvote 0
harryboon said:
I agree however surely their legal team would have said to stop the ads until case is sorted out
Click to expand...

Do you mean the legal teams of these 2 sites? Their ads just appeared. Maybe the lawyers' letters were sent out today?

We have no idea.

I think that they might just be bidding on words because they know Google relaxed its trademark policy a while back and have inferred that that means it's been decided that it's 100% legal to advertise.

Steve
 
Upvote 0
harryboon said:
OK so we have all discussed this issue for the last few days, and thank you to everyone who has joined in.

So what do we think is going to happen?

Interflora will win or lose - Yes or No?

Can we do polls on here?
Click to expand...

I'd be interested to know what people think would happen as opposed to what they hope!
 
Upvote 0
This has been going on since 2008. The Interflora vs. Marks & Spencer case was referred from the English courts to the European Court of Justice in June 2009, but the case only began its ECJ hearing this week.
 
Upvote 0
Yes I mean the legal teams for say M&S & ASDA.

SteveGibson said:
Do you mean the legal teams of these 2 sites? Their ads just appeared. Maybe the lawyers' letters were sent out today?
Click to expand...

I didn't know this had been going on since 2008, well M&S have really put two fingers up to Interflora if this has been going on this long.

Personally I still think Interflora will lose, not because I want them too, but I just can't see this happening.

I see pro's & con's with whatever happens to be honest :D
 
Upvote 0
I am surprised these type of events is not a regular occurence, it's actually surprising someone took note of these particular ads, and since they were a large enough company they could do something about it
 
Upvote 0
Upvote 0
<..cough..>

cjd said:
I think it's sharp practice personally and it seems that Interflora have a reasonable chance of succeeding on this one - I hope so, I don't see why another company should benefit from the use of my brand.
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
I wouldn't get too carried away. See bolding below:

"This [Advocate General's] opinion is based heavily on the particular facts here - namely that the trademark 'Interflora' denotes a commercial network of florists providing certain services and products. However, it will bring some comfort to brand owners that in such situations where members of the public could believe that the competitor is a member of their commercial network, they can prohibit the use of their trademark as an AdWord."
Click to expand...

If you're not known as a network that includes different companies in the same market, the reasons for Jääskinen's decision wouldn't apply.

Steve
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I would love to know if M & S used an outside agency to set up their AdWords.

I wonder if the individual person who added Interflora as a keyword (if anyone did) is still working for them and whether he will be made scapegoat.
 
Upvote 0
cjd said:
Excellent news and quite right too. A little bit more here:

http://www.computerweekly.com/Artic...fringed-Interflora-trademark39-in-AdWords.htm
Click to expand...

I don't see what is excellent about it. There is very little difference to M&S bidding on an Interflora keyword, than to paying for an advertising billboard outside of an Interflora shop.

As long as they are clearly saying M&S in the title, there won't be any mistake as to where people are going. Everyone is used to Google showing related searches via Adverts...
 
Upvote 0
All that's been said over and over in the thread....
 
Upvote 0
The Advocate General has now given his opinion on this in the case which has been referred to the European Court of Justice, which you can read in full here.

Whilst the Advocate General's opinion is not binding, it seems likely from this that Interflora will succeed in this particular case, on the basis that the sponsored link purchased by M&S may lead some people to believe that they are part of the Interflora network.
 
Upvote 0
Doesn't go far enough IMO - the 'network' part is a get out for all the other brand parasites....
 
Upvote 0
cjd said:
Doesn't go far enough IMO - the 'network' part is a get out for all the other brand parasites....
Click to expand...

Lol... calling them parasites is a bit much. Its a smart business decision to put your brand in a place where its going to be seen by your competitors potential customers...

Should Tesco be banned from advertising anywhere near Asda? As its effectively the same thing.

From a user point of view its a good thing to have other brands showing in Google, as long as they are not allowed to appear above the brand they are bidding on. Its offering choice.
 
Upvote 0
At first I agreed that this was a stupid case to bring by Interflora. However I am now starting to see some of the argument based on the ruling.

It is based on the fact that the layman may think that M&S is part of the Interflora network.

Taken another way an example may be "Network Q" which is the vauxhall approved repair network. These garages can be individually run but be part of the "Network Q" brand. A garage could bid on the "Network Q" keywords but not be associated with the network in any way or mention it on their website or collateral. The end user may believe it is a "Network Q" garage even though they are not.
 
Upvote 0
Could somebody save me the bother of ready this entire thread and please inform if Interflora won their case?

I presume they lost since M&S are still bidding on their name in Google searches?
 
Upvote 0
The case has not yet been decided finally as the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has to consider the Advocate General's Opinion and hand down a decision, following which the English High Court has to consider the ECJ judgement and then issue its own decision.

However, it seems likely that Interflora will win, based on the Advocate General's Opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheseWordsAreMyOwN
Upvote 0
If Interflora do win, doesn anybody know if this gives trademark owners 'carte blanche' over who bids on their terms?

I'm an online retailer who purchases wholesale from a manufacturer of electrical items. However, this manufacturer also sells direct through their own website.

Would they be allowed to stop me from bidding on their brand or products? I'm in their commercial network, but also a competitor as such.

Probably a stupid question but just want to clarify how much control brands may now have.
 
Upvote 0
Nothing has changed yet and it looks likely that even if/when it does, the finding will only apply to brands that own or manage networks ie like Interflora that has hundreds of outlets inside other shops.

In the Interflora vs M&S case the judge found that people could think that M&S were actually offering an Interflora service - which they weren't.

We''l have to wait for something less specific to apply outside that quite tight description.
 
Upvote 0
Update on this, the EU has made a ruling and it's now up to the UK High Court to finalise. Although I really don't understand the judgement from the EU and there are a number of different opinions.

Here is the actual ruling from the EU:
http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-b...&ydatefe=&nomusuel=&domaine=&mots=&resmax=100

Here is Interfloras statement - they seem happy:
http://blog.interflora.co.uk/ecj-ruling/

Here is an analytist saying M&S will win??!?:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...-over-trademarked-keywords-eu-court-says.html

I think it means that bidding on trademarks is allowed but not using the trademark in the ad??

Opinions??
 
Upvote 0
“Where the advertisement displayed on the Internet on the basis of a keyword corresponding to a trademark with a reputation puts forward an alternative to the goods or services” of the trademark owner, without imitating it or harming its reputation, “such use falls, as a rule, within the ambit of fair competition,” the Luxembourg-based EU court said.
Click to expand...

They've seen sense.

Steve
 
  • Like
Reactions: Colin Parker and RadiusBPO
Upvote 0
Yeah, I don't see why Interflora are trying to spin this as a victory (outside of trying to harvest backlinks from the publicity).

Having read the documents this morning, it definitely doesn't look like a victory, or "the end of brand bidding" if you were listening to Interfloras seo company...
 
Upvote 0
I think it all boils down to the whether people assume M & S is a store that sells different brands.

If you asked the average man in the street if this looks wrong it would be interesting to see the results.

M & S have a special offer this week on

Panasonic Washing Machines
Sony Televisions
Toshiba Laptops
Interflora Flowers
Ralph Lauren Polo Tops
Ninetendio Wii
Dyson Vacuum Cleaners

Personally up until this case I would have assumed M & S sold all of the above.
 
Upvote 0
UKSBD said:
I think it all boils down to the whether people assume M & S is a store that sells different brands.

If you asked the average man in the street if this looks wrong it would be interesting to see the results.

M & S have a special offer this week on

Panasonic Washing Machines
Sony Televisions
Toshiba Laptops
Interflora Flowers
Ralph Lauren Polo Tops
Ninetendio Wii
Dyson Vacuum Cleaners

Personally up until this case I would have assumed M & S sold all of the above.
Click to expand...

M&S do sell branded goods such as Sony Televisions, Nintendo Wii, Dyson Vacuums etc.

Which is what the crux of this case was (or my interpretation of it anyway). Interflora were arguing that consumers may assume that M&S was part of the Interflora group and therefore ordering flowers from M&S came from Interflora.
 
Upvote 0
andygambles said:
M&S do sell branded goods such as Sony Televisions, Nintendo Wii, Dyson Vacuums etc.

Which is what the crux of this case was (or my interpretation of it anyway). Interflora were arguing that consumers may assume that M&S was part of the Interflora group and therefore ordering flowers from M&S came from Interflora.
Click to expand...

Is that not what I just said?
 
Upvote 0
andygambles said:
Which is what the crux of this case was (or my interpretation of it anyway). Interflora were arguing that consumers may assume that M&S was part of the Interflora group and therefore ordering flowers from M&S came from Interflora.
Click to expand...

Yes, so Interflora could still win this case.

However, given the EU ruling, would they really get much in the way of "compensation"?

Surely it's just a case of M&S following acceptable practice that may happen to be a bit confusing because of the nature of Interflora - rather than then knowingly breaking the rules.

In which case, wouldn't it be that a fair ruling would just be that M&S have to stop the ads?

(Or, arguably, that M&S are found to be following the rules and Interflora have to pay costs.)

Steve
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
3 Google/Meta Ads mistakes I see UK SMEs make — happy to answer questions
Replies
5
Views
1K
Sales, Marketing & PR
AriaBrooks
A
K
Whose received the £400 adwords credit?
Replies
14
Views
7K
Sales, Marketing & PR
Karimbo
K
cyra
Seeking Advice: How to Get a Competent Google Ads Account Manager?
Replies
4
Views
5K
Sales, Marketing & PR
Zak@Pondhop
Zak@Pondhop
UKSBD
Anyone using Google Ads Performance Max Campaign?
Replies
6
Views
4K
Sales, Marketing & PR
Zak@Pondhop
Zak@Pondhop
henryd
What’s my business worth? Built a tool for UK SMEs — looking for feedback
Replies
32
Views
31K
Start Up Space
henryd
henryd

Latest Articles

Top Bottom
Back