H
Yeah everyone does do this, and I though it was proven legal by a previous ruling or was that just that Google isn't liable. Do you think they will try sue Next because they show up as 'Searches related to interflora'?
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 59730
- Original Poster
- #11
If Interflora do not win this case it will be another nail in the coffin of legitimate business.
Interflora are a network of small florists who have worked very hard over many years to create a very useful world wide service. If Interflora end up sinking because of the activities of WEB cowboys we will all be the poorer.
Interflora are a network of small florists who have worked very hard over many years to create a very useful world wide service. If Interflora end up sinking because of the activities of WEB cowboys we will all be the poorer.
Upvote
0
Agree with atmosbob. Interflora is a very strong brand name and trademark. Why should other companies such as M&S use their trademark to steal business from them? They wouldn't like it if the boot was on the other foot.
Note from the thread on this I started earlier today that no-one is daring to do it to M&S.
Note from the thread on this I started earlier today that no-one is daring to do it to M&S.
Upvote
0
H
harryboon
- Original Poster
- #13
I doubt very much they will win if I am honest, but I could be wrong.
and why do you think it is so bad? so a city should only have one hairdresser, one supermarket - its all about competition, and I personally think competition is what keeps business alive.
ready for insults
and why do you think it is so bad? so a city should only have one hairdresser, one supermarket - its all about competition, and I personally think competition is what keeps business alive.
ready for insults
Upvote
0
No one is daring to do it to M&S? I've not looked in any detail, but after googling 'M&S', 'Marks and Spencers', 'Marks & Spencers', and even 'Per Una' didn't return any sponsored links, so a pretty redundant example. Even if people were 'piggy-backing' (as the article put it) M&S in this regard, I think they'd realise that this is perfectly acceptable, even commendable, in the capitalist world in which we live.
Upvote
0
And what is Google?
Google is a company that's also worked hard. It's a company that also provides a very useful world wide service.
(One that's used by far more people than Interflora.)
So here's my question: why should interflora be allowed to profit from Google's work, but Google shouldn't?
Steve
Upvote
0
You get lots of sponsored links though if you google marks and spencers flowers: http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=marks+and+spencers+flowers&pws=0&hl=en&num=10
Upvote
0
It's simultaneously flattering and annoying - our competitors use our brand name to flog their own products too. From time to time I ask them to stop - the probably flawed argument being that if we all did it to each other the only beneficiary is Google.
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.
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.
Upvote
0
But doesn't Interflora benefit from the use of Google?
If I were Google I'd be tempted to offer Interflora the following:
Google has running costs and, if Interflora want to get lots of free organic traffic without allowing their brand terms to contribute to the running costs, then they are, IMO, acting like spoiled children.
Steve
If I were Google I'd be tempted to offer Interflora the following:
Google has running costs and, if Interflora want to get lots of free organic traffic without allowing their brand terms to contribute to the running costs, then they are, IMO, acting like spoiled children.
Steve
Upvote
0
Firstly, who are these cowboys you're talking about?
Secondly, are you asking, if people were bidding on my name, would I have a different opinion?
No, my view of what the law should be doesn't start and end with my own self-interest.
Steve
Upvote
0
If you had that in your ad, then I'd expect you'd have to be able to prove that conclusively. You don't normally see one company advertising that they're "better" than another.
(But you do see ads where banks compare their rates against those of other banks - that's clear, specific and can be proven.)
However, if you ran an ad against my name and it offered PPC services without mentioning me, that's fair game.
Steve
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Yes, and they use statistics to prove their case - e.g. that a 3rd party price checker found that they had more items cheaper than the others.
They don't just come out and say "we're cheaper".
Steve
Upvote
0
So people's perception of those ads isn't that tesco are claiming to be better than asda? Come on.....it's a non arguement
d
Upvote
0
So people's perception of those ads isn't that tesco are claiming to be better than asda? Come on.....it's a non arguement
They're using verifiable facts to make the comparison. They're not just saying "we're better", which would be a way of talking down a competitor without any basis.
There's a world of difference between the two things.
Steve
Upvote
0
Interesting thing is that it seems M&S do not employ SEO's or maybe they do just not the right ones.?
As they could easily bury interflora in the organics.
Earl
Upvote
0
I should imagine the vast majority of those are using 'flowers' or some variation thereof in a phrase or broad match. Either way, M&S seem to realise this sort of practise is largely accepted and entirely legitimate.
An interesting point to make, interflora obviously have massive pride/faith in their trademark if they're so concerned about M&S advertising in such a way. If that's the case though, surely they wouldn't mind? After all, such a strong brand is surely going to draw business in regardless of what competition appears on SERPS?
A great point by sirearl, if I was in M&S marketing division, I'd definitely be advising SEO as an avenue to decimate interflora.
Upvote
0
Hi
I'm a patent & trademark attorney at London IP.
This is a hot topic at the moment.
There have been various recent cases on this, and they all turn on the facts.
The law seems to be settling against the practice of using competitors' trademarks for advertising, as laid out by the answers (issued in July 2010) to the questions referred to the ECJ in the Portakabin/Primakabin case. These answers indicate that what M&S has done is likely to be held an infringement, but it is up to the national court to decide the matter based on the facts.
A nice summary of the Portakabin matter may be found here:
http://www.scl.org/site.aspx?i=ne16792
My analogy would be putting an ad in a newspaper with your telephone number, but a name that is your competitor's trademark. This is not a direct analogy, but can more clearly be seen to be an infringement.
I would advise any client against using their competitors' trademarks in adwords unless there is a genuine defence to trademark infringement.
I therefore expect Interflora to win.
I am also a little surprised that some members of the forum seem to be against Interflora. Riding off the back of your competitors' success does not seem to me to be honest business practice.
Imagine if your competitor started using your business name to trigger adverts on Google (a potentially massive source of new clients). If you have spent a lot of time and money building up your brand it does seem unfair for your competitor's advert to appear and result in a loss of trade for you.
I'm a patent & trademark attorney at London IP.
This is a hot topic at the moment.
There have been various recent cases on this, and they all turn on the facts.
The law seems to be settling against the practice of using competitors' trademarks for advertising, as laid out by the answers (issued in July 2010) to the questions referred to the ECJ in the Portakabin/Primakabin case. These answers indicate that what M&S has done is likely to be held an infringement, but it is up to the national court to decide the matter based on the facts.
A nice summary of the Portakabin matter may be found here:
http://www.scl.org/site.aspx?i=ne16792
My analogy would be putting an ad in a newspaper with your telephone number, but a name that is your competitor's trademark. This is not a direct analogy, but can more clearly be seen to be an infringement.
I would advise any client against using their competitors' trademarks in adwords unless there is a genuine defence to trademark infringement.
I therefore expect Interflora to win.
I am also a little surprised that some members of the forum seem to be against Interflora. Riding off the back of your competitors' success does not seem to me to be honest business practice.
Imagine if your competitor started using your business name to trigger adverts on Google (a potentially massive source of new clients). If you have spent a lot of time and money building up your brand it does seem unfair for your competitor's advert to appear and result in a loss of trade for you.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I'd say a better analogy is that you find out that there's going to be an newspaper article about your competitor and you buy ad space on that page.
The competitor doen't own that page of the newspaper, even though the article is about them. It belongs to the newspaper and the newspaper has the right to sell ads.
Also, as far as I know, M&S haven't used the term "Interflora" in their ad.
I'm no lawyer, but I expect them to lose. The Portakabin link you gave can be summed up by the sentence:
Which is a fair enough conclusion.
But clearly someone who sees an ad by M&S that doesn't mention Interflora knows that it's not Interflora.
I think your understanding of the word "honest" is a bit off the mark. No-one is suggesting anyone should be pretending to be someone or something they're not.
Interflora don't "own" the people who are searching for the word "interflora". I'd bet that, of those that click on the Interflora link, not all of them buy.
Therefore offering alternatives to interflora is a good thing. It improves choice.
I wonder how much free advertising Interflora are getting from Google. The fact that a tiny percentage of the searchers are being directed towards someone else's ad should be seen as a small price to pay for that.
Steve
Upvote
0
I'm no lawyer but I'm hoping they'll win.
I see no reason why it's legal for a company to use my mark to trigger their ad.
They are attempting to gain financial advantage by using the goodwill built in my brand to their own benefit - not in a passive way, but by actively entering my mark into a programme that generates their ads. That's just wrong.
It seems that the balance of lawyer opinion is that they'll win but it is likely to be qualified to this fairly specific method. But that'll do for me.
Upvote
0
Latest Articles
-
What I Wish I'd Known Before Using AI in My BusinessSomewhere between the headlines promising AI will transform everything...- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
Is AI Making the Internet Worse?It started with a comment about music. @JEREMY HAWKE , a courier...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
The AI Divide: What UKBF Members Really Think in 2026Every few months on UK Business Forums, a thread appears that refuses...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
When the Algorithm Gets It Wrong: What eBay's AI Moderation Problem Tells Us About Platform RiskA thread appeared on UKBF this week that, on the surface, looks like a...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
Should you crowdfund? A framework for UK founders in 2026Three articles into a series on what crowdfunding actually costs, the...
- Ozzy
- Updated: