M&S Interflora judgement announced

[UKSBD]

http://www.thedrum.com/news/2013/05...cer-pay-interflora-damages-google-adwords-row

 

[deniser]

Finally the right result! Thanks for posting.

 

[SEO Lady]

That has been going on for years

Personally I'm chuffed about the ruling.

 

[ChrisLBC]

maybe interflora can make back some of there lost earnings

 

[Websitehandyman]

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".

 

[cjd]

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.)

 

[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.

 

[UKSBD]

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.)

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

 

[UKSBD]

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.

You must have posted that just as I stated writing

 

[Ali-v-8]

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

 

[JonathanSEO]

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.

 

[directmarketingadvice]

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.

 

[Suzuki]

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.

Not even close to being relevant - absolutely nothing to do with other peoples trademarks...

 

[directmarketingadvice]

Not even close to being relevant - absolutely nothing to do with other peoples trademarks...

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

 

[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.

 

[directmarketingadvice]

Interflora spamming their way to the top for 'flowers' was nothing to do with laws

Until or unless some judge decides it is.

Frankly, I'm amazed at the myopia here.

People lost money in each of those circumstances.... but they're worlds apart.

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

 

[Suzuki]

Until or unless some judge decides it is.

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.

 

[directmarketingadvice]

What law could possibly have been broken with some seo spam?

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

 

[Suzuki]

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.

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...

 

[directmarketingadvice]

Now you're just being pedantic.

You don't seem to know what that word means.

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.

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?

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...

... and, of course, you had nothing to do with starting that?

Steve

 

[UKSBD]

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.

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

 

[directmarketingadvice]

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

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.

 

[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

 

[David Warrilow]

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