Interflora takes M&S Google AdWords dispute to court
Share
Interflora is taking its long-running dispute with Marks & Spencer over the retailer’s alleged “piggy-backing” on Google searches for the florist’s website to a European court.
M&S paid the search engine to have its own online flower business promoted every time consumers search for Interflora.
Google users are offered a link to M&S’s florist site underneath the search result for Interflora under the sponsored link section.
As spokeswoman for Interflora confirmed the action but declined to comment further.
M&S claims that the practice of paying for keywords via Google’s AdWords service is an “industry-wide” and “not unlawful”.
The florist has previously said that the AdWords’ policy increases its advertising costs.
In a blog last year it said: “We are very serious about protecting our brand name ’Interflora’. Our brand name is also a registered trade mark and the whole idea of registering marks is to protect them from mis-use by third parties.”
Earlier this year, the European Court of Justice ruled in favour of Google after luxury brand Moét Hennessey Louis Vuitton had claimed Google’s AdWords service undermines brands and breaches European trademark law by allowing rival advertisers to purchase trademarked keywords.
Readers' comments (4)
D. Cooper | Thu, 14 Oct 2010 12:45 pm
This will set an interesting precedent indeed. This practice has been standard and 'industry-wide' for some time. Google's arguement will always likely be that it provides a better user experience. And with the recent relaxation in their trademark bidding and ad copy policy the practice is only likely to increase under the current legislation. This will be an interesting battle.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | Thu, 14 Oct 2010 4:17 pm
This practice is cheap - M&S should be ashamed of themselves. At the lower end of the market it also encourages copycat websites with counterfeit branded goods to feed off the real brands and dupe unsuspecting customers. Google are in a win-win position because the real brand needs to advertise more with them to combat the practice. Google should act responsibly and police this abuse rather than profiting from it. A trademark is a property belonging to the owner- 3rd party trading of it an buyer of seller must surely be wrong. Good luck to you Interflora - help us sort this mess out . . .
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
James Royston | Fri, 15 Oct 2010 12:27 pm
As a marketing man - there is nothing more annoying than having to compete over keywords, especially trademarked ones. There probably should be greater protection.
As a consumer - If I type interflora into google... I'm probably going to click on Interflora because I've already decided where im getting my flowers from... However, being made aware of other "floral suppliers" could be useful... and if the ad text grabs me yes i will be "stolen away" from Interflora... but as a consumer... It's none of my concern i just want my flowers.
So the question is... Do you want this kind of protection for the good of business or for the good of consumers.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Gordonc | Fri, 4 Mar 2011 9:03 am
Interfora is not the champion here, as it is also the villian.
Interflora indulges in brand name bidding just as much (or perhaps more) as M&S.
The washup is that the consumer eventually bears the cost of all this indulgence and I believe it should be regulated.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment