header-logo header-logo

Flower power for Interflora in ECJ

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

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

Kingsley Napley—Claire Green

Kingsley Napley—Claire Green

Firm announces appointment of chief legal officer

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Firm bolsters Manchester insurance practice with double partner appointment

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

NEWS
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
Lord Sales has been appointed to become the Deputy President of the Supreme Court after Lord Hodge retires at the end of the year
Transferring anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorism financing supervision to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) could create extra paperwork and increase costs for clients, lawyers have warned 
back-to-top-scroll