header-logo header-logo

28 September 2011
Issue: 7483 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Flower power for Interflora in ECJ

Landmark trademark infringement ruling over search engine keyword

Companies which purchase a rival’s trademark as a search engine keyword could be committing a trademark infringement, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled.

Interflora brought legal action against Marks & Spencer for buying “Interflora” as a Google AdWord thereby ensuring a link to Marks & Spencer’s online flower shop appeared every time an internet user searched for “Interflora” on Google.

The ECJ ruled in favour of the trademark proprietor in its judgment last week, Interflora v Marks & Spencer: C-323/09.

It held that the trademark proprietor can prevent the use of the AdWord “if the advertisement does not enable reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant internet users, or enables them only with difficulty, to ascertain whether the goods or services referred to by the advertisement originate from the proprietor of the trademark or an undertaking economically connected to it or, on the contrary, originate from a third party”.

It further found that, depending on the referring court’s assessment of the facts, if the advertising led internet users to believe that Marks & Spencer’s flower-delivery service was part of Interflora’s commercial network then the trademark would be infringed since the function of the trademark would be “adversely affected”.

According to Pinsent Masons, which acted for Interflora: “The court held, for the first time, that use of a competitor’s trademark in the AdWords system can be unlawful where the use substantially interferes with a brand’s reputation and its ability to attract and retain consumers.

“As a result, brand bidding on competitors’ trademarks now carries more legal risk. The court also ruled that such use may also constitute free-riding (or taking unfair advantage) of a brand where that brand has established a reputation.”

Pinsent Masons partner Iain Connor says: “This is a significant ruling, and will have wide-reaching effects, in particular for the many companies that currently use rivals’ trademarks online in order to advertise their own businesses.”

The case will now revert to the High Court for determination on the facts.

Issue: 7483 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Mark Hastings, Quillon Law

NLJ Career Profile: Mark Hastings, Quillon Law

Mark Hastings, founding partner of Quillon Law, on turning dreams into reality and pushing back on preconceptions about partnership

Kingsley Napley—Silvia Devecchi

Kingsley Napley—Silvia Devecchi

New family law partner for Italian and international clients appointed

Mishcon de Reya—Susannah Kintish

Mishcon de Reya—Susannah Kintish

Firm elects new chair of tier 1 ranked employment department

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll