It's thorny for two reasons, though one far moreso than the other:

1. Trademarks are granted in specific categories (McDonald’s restaurants and McDonald’s Shoe Emporium are two different kinds of business who might hold a trademark on the same thing)

2. The companies aren't actually *displaying* the trademark, the user is just searching for it. To the letter of the law, they've actually not done anything wrong (unless the ad text contains the mark in question).

Users know that sponsored links are just that, which reduces the risk of “likely confusion”, and so are likely to be aware that the sponsored links may include competitors (which could well be to the consumer's advantage, after all).

If the advertisers aren't actually claiming to _be_ the company associated with the trademark, I say let them bid.

Isn't this like the US phone companes who grab the numbers corresponding to things like

1-800-operater to catch the people who can't spell 'operator' ?

Also reminds me of the spelling checker in the Interleaf wordprocessor that used to offer "Interleaf" as a correction for "Framemaker" in documents (or maybe that was the other way around) . Full marks to M&S for initiative.

If interflora (TM) win does this mean that google will have to then police sponsorship of trademarks and therefore the trademark holder gets them by default without having to bid?

Sounds to me that when a user searches for "interflora", that should be the top result (because that's what the user *asked* for). But what about the other results on the page? Maybe the user actually wants to know what alternatives there are. In many cases, trademarks have a legal force which isn't reflected in common parlance: the average user might well say "interflora" when he means "flowers delivered", just in the same way that "google it" is an instruction to search the internet (not necessarily with google!)

I'm very familiar with this situation, working in the online flower world and having had threatening letters from IF myself in the past (though wishing to remain anonymous here for obvious reasons). My interpretation is that, on the basis that there can be no confusion of the brands, that Interflora's case is flawed. There are other weaknesses in their argument too. Interflora have a reputation in the industry for being litigious, so I'm not surprised to see them going at it hammer and tongs.

Funny that an Interflora affiliate is currently bidding on keyword Interflora and then redirecting any purchase attempts back to the Interflora site, in breach of double serving guidelines. FTD is also the parent of Interflora and is also bidding, so feasibly also in the wrong (although seems to be more a case of poor PPC set up by a US florist than anything else). Physician, heal thyself!

So at one level, this is M&S going ambulance chasing - the customers haven't gone looking for their flowers, they're piggy-backing on customers who are explicitly looking for a competitor.

But I go along with the view that presenting your own clearly identified product offerings in response to a search for a competitor's trademark is *not* infringement. Interflora's real problem is this: there will be florists who are Interflora members who also have keyword ads, and are being pushed off the results screen by M&S having a bigger click-through ratio.

... gives a sponsored link to MorphyRichards.co.uk.

Q: When you search for "interflora" are you searching for the trademarked product, or are you looking for a generic "flower delivery service"?

Is Interflora, like Google & Hoover before it now just a generic term?

"Get the hoover on it"

"Oh just google it"

"I need to send an interflora"

@BLoad - Nice as ever to see the base IQ of El Reg readers rising steadily. How's your joined up handwriting coming along?

IANAL

If the name is in common use (Vaseline got very close) for a product or service then you can lose your trademark. IMHO Interflora is not a common use for the task of flower sales and delivery. Type in Flower Sales or Flower Delivery into Google - looks like Interflora only pay them to appear in the sponsored links for delivery, not sales - M&S do for both.

Search for a particular hotel - how many times is the sponsored link for that hotel... this is a very difficult area.