M&S Interflora judgement announced
- Thread starter UKSBD
- Start date
What I can't understand is how did the staff working for M&S manage to include the term "interflora" at all. Seems to me loads of keywords I use get kicked as being "a brand name".
Upvote
0
It's a first step - need to read the judgement but it may well be limited.
(We're fed up with people using 'Voipfone' as a keyword for their crappy service, though they usually stop when we ask nicely.)
(We're fed up with people using 'Voipfone' as a keyword for their crappy service, though they usually stop when we ask nicely.)
Upvote
0
S
Suzuki
The ruling is almost certainly not going to count for other people though - read all the past court documents etc and you will see. Their was issues there as Interflora run loads of concessions and other branches and so on - the argument was that M&S advertising there, made it look like they were part of this group.
imo if you have one single shop somewhere, and a competitor with another shop bids on your brand (but doesn't use it in the ad copy) then they will still be able to keep doing this.
imo if you have one single shop somewhere, and a competitor with another shop bids on your brand (but doesn't use it in the ad copy) then they will still be able to keep doing this.
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #8
I think it boils down to the fact that people could have mistakenly thought M&S were selling on behalf of, or were part of the Interflora group.
I said right from the start that it was an assumption anyone could make as M&S is a department store that sells other brands.
It would have been easy for anyone searching for Interflora who ended up getting taken to the M&S website to just assume it was an internal (official Interflora) department within M&S
Upvote
0
This has now created a bench mark - "Brand names" will now be chased for lost revenue. SO much for the little guy making a little buck - Corporates are ruining Ecommerce
Upvote
0
Yeah I can't see this having big implications for other Adwords spenders. This took like 4 years or something?
I personally dislike Interflora anyway so not glad they won, any small florist that opens inevitably becomes part of the network. Got them by the balls.
I personally dislike Interflora anyway so not glad they won, any small florist that opens inevitably becomes part of the network. Got them by the balls.
Upvote
0
Depending on the size of the damages, a lousy decision.
It's localised to Iterflora - which means you can advertise on these terms, except when someone with little understanding of the internet decides you can't.
Which means you can think you're obeying the law, and then find out you've broken it. Which is lousy.
So, a lousy victory for a lousy company for lousy reasons.
Steve
PS I'd like to see Interflora being sued by all the companies that lost revenue because Interflora did the SEO things that got them penalised by Google.
PPS I suspect this isn't over.
It's localised to Iterflora - which means you can advertise on these terms, except when someone with little understanding of the internet decides you can't.
Which means you can think you're obeying the law, and then find out you've broken it. Which is lousy.
So, a lousy victory for a lousy company for lousy reasons.
Steve
PS I'd like to see Interflora being sued by all the companies that lost revenue because Interflora did the SEO things that got them penalised by Google.
PPS I suspect this isn't over.
Upvote
0
S
Suzuki
Not even close to being relevant - absolutely nothing to do with other peoples trademarks...
Upvote
0
You may be incapable of seeing a connection between "loss of earnings" and "loss of earnings", but that doesn't mean there isn't one.
Steve
Last edited:
Upvote
0
S
Suzuki
You may be incapable of seeing a connection between "loss of earnings" and "loss of earnings", but that doesn't mean there isn't one.
Steve
Interflora spamming their way to the top for 'flowers' was nothing to do with laws - they were simply abusing Googles algorithms for their own gain. If they got caught then Google was entitled to boot them for it (which they did, temporarily).
The M&S stuff was completely different... it was a trademark issue and covered by actual laws rather than T&C's of a 3rd party website.
People lost money in each of those circumstances.... but they're worlds apart.
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
Until or unless some judge decides it is.
Frankly, I'm amazed at the myopia here.
Far less than you realise. Ultimately, they both come down to what some people view to be questionable behaviour in search engine advertising... and how that's perceived by a legal system that has no understanding of such things.
It won't be long before some SEO gets sued for negative SEO.
Once that happens, don't assume other dodgy SEO practices will be off limits when it comes to damages for loss of earnings. The law is a lot less wise - and a lot more unpredictable - than most people realise.
Steve
Upvote
0
S
Suzuki
What law could possibly have been broken with some seo spam? Sure its annoying for anyone else involved, but its never a legal dispute in a million years.
Upvote
0
Are you saying you've looked at every law on the book and, being a legal expert, used your expertise to conclude beyond any doubt that any of them could apply to this?
I suspect not.
I can understand M&S being told to take down their ad because of confusion. But this is talking about damages.
Now, of course, these damages could be (should be) nominal. In which case, we're talking about one thing.
But if, on the other hand, they're substantial, then that sets a precedent: a company can use search engine marketing marketing within all known rules and still have to pay out big damages.
As I said, I'm surprised by the myopia on here. To assume that, once this door is opened, no other doors will open as an indirect result is, IMO, very short-sighted.
Steve
Upvote
0
S
Suzuki
Now you're just being pedantic.
One is clearly a t&c dispute... one is clearly a legal/trademark dispute. If you have anything to show otherwise then feel free to post it. If you want my comment on it then you can pm me as I'm unsubscribing this thread now. As usual it has just turned into another ukbf shitfest...
Upvote
0
You don't seem to know what that word means.
Oh, I'm sorry, when did you take over the running of the forum?
Listen, if you think my posts violate the rules of the forum, report them to the real moderators. In the meantime, if I decide I want to make a point, I'll make it.
Understood?
... and, of course, you had nothing to do with starting that?
Steve
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #21
I have a pretty good understanding of the Internet compared to Joe Public.
But if I had done a search for Interflora and ended up on M&S I would have assumed I was going to an Interflora category within M&S
Much the same as if I do a search for Blue Harbour I expect to go to the Blue Harbour category within M&S
Upvote
0
According to one article I read, M&S flowers used to be part of Interflora. So that could increase the likelihood of a searcher assuming they're part of Interflora.
So I understand there's confusion. And, as I wrote earlier in the thread, I understand why M&S could be told to take down their ad as a result of that confusion.
The question here is damages. Will they be nominal, or will they be to cover all the lost visitors?
From where I'm sitting, I see a court case where it's taken 5 years for a lot of lawyers and judges to figure out whether or not a law has been broken.
5 years. Hardly the sign of an open-and-shut case.
And, as someone who thinks the law should be clear - and, thus, give us the ability to know whether or not we're following the law - I feel that, when you get such a knife-edge decision, the "guilty" party really isn't that guilty.
So, because of that, I feel M&S should pay almost nothing.
Take down the ad, sure. Cover the costs of lost traffic? No.
Just my 2p,
Steve
PS And, of course, there's the moral issue about whether a company should be allowed to whine about "lost earnings" from the search engines while using black hat SEO techniques to deprive their SEO competitors of earnings.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 13430
The decision is very fact specific and did turn very much on the nature of Interflora's business model. Some comment on the case:-
http://bit.ly/151U0b8
and a copy of the full judgement, if people have the time:-
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/marku...013/1291.html&query=interflora&method=boolean
http://bit.ly/151U0b8
and a copy of the full judgement, if people have the time:-
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/marku...013/1291.html&query=interflora&method=boolean
Upvote
0
We have written a brief review of the case if anyone is interested in a summary (and a little opinion on the direction that the law has taken):
http://www.londonip.com/trademarks_and_adwords.html
Cheers
David
http://www.londonip.com/trademarks_and_adwords.html
Cheers
David
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- lawrencerodkin
- Legal, Employment and Insolvency
Latest Articles
-
90,000 jobs are heading your way. Your rates bill might get there firstIf you run a business in Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds or Bristol, you were probably told some...- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 8 min read
-
How to Price a New Product or Service: We Asked UKBFOn 5 August, @Data Swami posted in the General Business Forum with a question that ought to have...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 7 min read
-
70 years of director bans in six months: Companies House has stopped asking nicelyCompanies House published a release on August 6th 2026 that every company director should read...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 7 min read
-
MTD for Income Tax: your first quarterly update is due 7 August.If you are a sole trader or landlord and your gross income from self-employment and property was...- maka
- Updated:
- 4 min read
-
Andy Burnham's Manifesto for Small Business, and How It Stacks Up Against Count BinfaceIf all goes to plan (or rather, to Labour's timetable), Andy Burnham will be sworn in as Prime...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 5 min read