Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
Find up-to-date guidance on points of law and then easily pull up sources to support your advice with Lexis PSL
Check out our straightforward definitions of common legal terms.
Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter.
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Access our unrivalled global news content, business information and analytics solutions
Insurance, risk and compliance intelligence using big data, proprietary linking and advanced analytics.
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Our latest thinking on key legal industry developments
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
In what circumstances does keyword advertising amount to trade mark infringement? Theo Savvides, a partner at Bristows LLP, considers the Court of Appeal decision in Interflora Inc and another v Marks and Spencer plc  EWCA Civ 1403,  All ER (D) 55 (Nov)
M&S is one of the best-known retailers in the UK and has sold flowers online since at least 2000. Interflora is the operator of the well-known flower delivery network. M&S advertises its flowers online and uses the Google AdWords service, so that when users of Google’s search engine enter ‘interflora’ as a search term, an advertisement appears which promotes the M&S flower service and has a link to M&S’s website, though the word ‘interflora’ does not appear in the advertisement itself. Interflora sued M&S for trade mark infringement.
© Danard Vincente
The case has been running for just short of six years. Over this time it was referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) before then proceeding to trial. The CJEU ruled that the test for liability focused on the manner that the advertisement was presented in response to the trade mark search term. The key question was whether M&S’s advertisement on the Google search engine results page enabled the reasonably observant and attentive internet user to ascertain whether the goods or services referred to in the advertisement come from the trade mark proprietor (or a linked entity) or from a third party.
The High Court found that M&S infringed on the basis that those who searched ‘interflora’ and then clicked on the advertisement were led to believe incorrectly that M&S’s flower service was part of the Interflora network. In coming to this decision, the judge held that M&S had the onus of proving that the advertisement was clear that the goods or services advertised did not come from the trade mark owner or an entity connected with the trade mark owner.
This decision has now been overturned by the Court of Appeal because the court below was found to have made errors of law, as well as erring in its application of the evidence. In view of this, the Court of Appeal remitted the matter for a retrial.
It argued that the judge had:
The Court of Appeal found that in considering the test, it makes no difference whether the question is asked and answered from the perspective of the single hypothetical well-informed and observant internet user or whether that hypothetical person provides the benchmark for identifying the population of internet users whose views are material. To this end, it found that the judge was entitled to have regard to the effect of the advertisements on a significant section of the relevant class of consumers. However, it warned that only discounting the views of internet users who were ill-informed or unobservant ran the risk of setting the bar too low. The Court of Appeal stressed that it was only the effect of the advertisements on internet users who are reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant that must be taken into account.
The Court of Appeal found that the judge had erred in placing reliance on initial interest confusion. This is a concept arising where the average consumer’s initial confusion might be dispelled prior to the point of sale, but the consumer might continue with the purchase despite no longer being confused. The Court of Appeal said the only test to consider if the functions were affected was the ‘reasonable internet user’ test set out by the CJEU. It went on to say that the doctrine of initial interest confusion was a ‘potentially misleading gloss’ which should form no part of the analysis of trade mark infringement, at least in keyword advertising cases.
The Court of Appeal held that the judge had been entitled to apply an EU-wide injunction. In coming to this decision the court considered the Court of Justice’s decision in DHL Express France SAS v Chronopost SA  All ER (D) 105 (Apr), holding that in considering whether to apply an EU-wide injunction the court must:
As to the form of the injunction granted, the Court of Appeal declined to make a finding as the case was to be remitted to the High Court and this matter could be left to the judge if infringement were found. In coming to this point, the Court of Appeal indicated that the judge should apply a proportionality assessment that takes into account:
Finally, the Court of Appeal held that the judge had been correct in finding that there could be trade mark infringement where an advertisement was delivered in response to a search for a trade mark term when the advertiser had not bid on the term as an AdWord but the advertisement had been delivered as a result of Google’s advanced broad matching function. The Court of Appeal made clear that in assessing whether an advertiser has used the trade mark in these circumstances, the court would need to have regard to whether the object and effect of the advertiser’s activities had been to trigger the appearance of its advertisements in response to searches for the trade mark term.
The Court of Appeal repeatedly made the point that keyword advertising was not inherently or inevitably objectionable. The policy behind this is that trade mark rights should not prevent fair competition where the aim of the advertiser is to offer alternatives to the goods or services of the trade mark proprietor.
Perhaps the most important aspect of the Court of Appeal’s judgment was to overturn the reverse burden that the judge at first instance had held lay on M&S. In coming to this decision, the Court of Appeal stressed that it was not the advertiser’s duty to avoid infringement. This finding on burden redresses the balance for legitimate advertisers. There has been a shift back in their favour on the basis that though advertisers have to exercise caution in ensuring an advertisement does not infringe, the burden is not on them to prove that they do not infringe.
However, ultimately what matters when preparing an advertisement or opposing one, is what is written in the advertisement and how the average consumer perceives it in the context of the search engine results page. Whether there is infringement will ultimately depend upon the reasonable internet user’s perception of the advertisement and how it is presented.
Originally published on WIPIT’s sister site, LexisPSL IP&IT.
Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK
* denotes a required field
0330 161 1234