Lush v Amazon.co.uk — decision should force radical rethink of web advertising tactics
By Kate Macmillan
Businesses that attempt to boost online sales by ‘piggybacking’ off the good reputations of similar products will have to radically rethink their tactics after a trademark decision in the High Court this month.
The bottom line is this: use someone else’s trademark in adverts on a third-party search engine, such as Google, or in the search function of your own website, to direct consumers to products that are not the trademark owner’s, and you run the risk of being sued successfully for trademark infringement.
The decision will make many online retailers rethink their marketing strategies, while trademark owners who have been suffering infringement may well wish to take action with the weight of the decision behind them…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the Collyer Bristow briefing.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from Collyer Bristow
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Collyer Bristow
FCA swaps review: has the independent reviewer fulfilled its function to ensure a fair and reasonable outcome?
Holmcroft Properties’ case was included in the review process which the FCA agreed with Barclays (and other banks) the banks should undertake to provide redress to customers who had been missold IRHP.
Once damaging personal information is in the public domain, it is hard to regain control of it.