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.

Briefings from Collyer Bristow

  • Hate crimes and drag queens in cyber space

    In a new book published by Harvard University Press, Hate Crimes in Cyber Space, Prof Danielle Citron lays her prescription for tackling the ‘awful internet’.

  • ISDA notice service requirements

    The case of Greenclose Ltd v National Westminster Bank has emphasised the tight requirements for giving a valid notice under the 1992 ISDA Master Agreement.

View more briefings from Collyer Bristow

Analysis from The Lawyer

Overview

4 Bedford Row
London
WC1R 4TF
UK

Turnover (£m): 15.10
No. of Lawyers: 82