'Google AdWords litigation' between Marks & Spencer and Interflora
On 21 May, Arnold J in the High Court delivered his judgment in the ‘Google AdWords’ litigation between Marks & Spencer (M&S) and Interflora. This article summarises the High Court decision but also asks where that decision leaves comparative advertising — something of a forgotten man in this litigation.
Applying the reasoning of the European Court, Arnold J held that M&S had infringed Interflora’s trademarks. This was because M&S’s advertisements, which were generated when a user searched via Google for certain of Interflora’s trademarks (such as INTERFLORA), did not enable reasonably well-informed and reasonably attentive internet users to work out (or to work out without difficulty) if the service referred to in the advertisements originated from the trademark proprietor — in other words, Interflora, a business connected with it, or a third party, when the latter was the case. This damaged the origin function of the trademark.
It is worth at this point recalling that the infringement related back to 2008 when, perhaps, internet users were not as adept as they are now, five years later, at distinguishing keyword results from normal search term results…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Walker Morris briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
News from Walker Morris
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Walker Morris
A misrepresentation is a statement that induces entry into a contract and that turns out to be false.
Marshalling is an equitable remedy for achieving fairness between two or more secured creditors of the same debtor.
Analysis from The Lawyer
The law school war shows no signs of ending. But we have, perhaps, reached the end of the beginning.
New EU rules and lawyers’ increased comfort with digital formats are sparking a sea-change in the way law firms manage their documents