M&S getting sued by Interflora for competitor PPC

**NeilBd** · 11-12-08

Originally Posted by nim-b

Looking at that phrase aren't they appearing because they are bidding on 'flowers', not because they're bidding on their competitor's term?

My understanding is they are suing on the basis that M&S were bidding just on their trademark- not on trademark + generic. Interflora are not bidding on the term 'Marks & Spencer' which would be the equivalent. So I wouldn't say its the same practice at all.

I'm guessing Interflora will be pretty certain it wasn't extended broadmatch being used in this case, otherwise that would be the easiest defence for M&S to use. To clear that up I'd expect at some point during the case the prosecution will ask for the relevant sections of the M&S keyword list to be disclosed to the court. Otherwise the whole thing is based on guesswork.

10 points to Nim-b.

**djbarker** · 11-12-08

Originally Posted by nim-b

Looking at that phrase aren't they appearing because they are bidding on 'flowers', not because they're bidding on their competitor's term?

That was my assumption too. Dug a little deeper though & I'm not 100% sure.

Searched for "marks & spencer flowers" and Interflora are up there.
Searched for "marks & garry flowers" and no Interflora listing.
Searched for "marks flowers" and no Interflora listing.

Who knows though - hit and miss testing this kind of thing as the AdWords serps change on every reload.

**Shane** · 11-12-08

Originally Posted by DROBNJAK

What was this? Does it mean that Interflora had a monopoly on word "flowers"?

no.. they THOUGHT they could do that with regard to PPC .. they said no bidding on the main generic flower keywords ... I seem to recall affiliates basically telling them to feck right off!

**nim-b** · 11-12-08

Originally Posted by Shane

no.. they THOUGHT they could do that with regard to PPC .. they said no bidding on the main generic flower keywords ... I seem to recall affiliates basically telling them to feck right off!

You mean they tried to stop all affiliates (even those not direct-linking) from bidding on 'flowers'? That is extreme.

**Qui Gon Jinn** · 12-12-08

Interflora were ridiculed at the time and rightly so, I am not sure where there are historical posts on the forum, possibly are somewhere, but didn't a network take them on not too long ago and said the the leopard had changed it's spots. But they seem more in line with "normal" ppc policies now.

Again I know I harp on about it, and don't really care & quite content with playing the same record, but imo there is little difference between ppc'ing for a brand & seo'ing for a brand.

interflora - Google Search

So how many of those 1.5 million sites does Interflora which to sue for mentioning their brand name on their sites?

Does the telegraph still have the article anywhere?

**djtearz** · 06-03-09

do we know if any court judgment has been made on this?

I cant find anything online.

**Purdey** · 03-09-09

came across this on twitter:

Illegal Free-riding on the Interflora Brand | Interflora

**sean_h** · 03-09-09

There was also a blog on e-consultancy about this as well

Interflora awaits ruling on trademark keyword bidding | Blog | Econsultancy

**WBD2009** · 28-09-09

Louis Vuitton are also now having a go at suing google and unlike the M&S case it is taking place in the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and not a national court such as Britain or France. The French Courts upheld Louis Vuitton complaint (no surprise there) and Google have appealled the decision.

It looks like it is round one to Google but lawyers are saying that if Louis Vuitton (LV) can prove that Google has damaged their brand they will be able to seek compensation. The main thrust of the argument seems to differ from the M&S case as LV are concerned about people buying the "sponsored link" and then promoting fake goods.

The European Court of Justice has now put the case to a full panel with an outcome expected this year.

**andrew_coyne** · 05-10-09

Originally Posted by WBD2009

Louis Vuitton are also now having a go at suing google and unlike the M&S case it is taking place in the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and not a national court such as Britain or France. The French Courts upheld Louis Vuitton complaint (no surprise there) and Google have appealled the decision.

It looks like it is round one to Google but lawyers are saying that if Louis Vuitton (LV) can prove that Google has damaged their brand they will be able to seek compensation. The main thrust of the argument seems to differ from the M&S case as LV are concerned about people buying the "sponsored link" and then promoting fake goods?

The European Court of Justice has now put the case to a full panel with an outcome expected this year.

Surely sueing Google is the most stupid thing a company can do. After all, couldn't Google just easily not display their adverts to ensure they don't run into anymore legal trouble? Surely Google do not have a legal obligation to feature everyone.

Also I did a exact search for "Marks and spencers flowers" and interflora came up. So surely this means Interflora are bidding on Marks and Spencers and are therefore a bunch of hypocrites????