A final resolution to the Interflora case has been delayed—again

AdWords litigation is traditionally lengthy. Rosetta Stone and Google’s famous case lasted three years, while the online search engine took six years to win a similar case in Australia. And British retailer Marks and Spencer’s (M&S) dispute with flower delivery network Interflora has been particularly epic.

A number of disputes have arisen from the case, as UK courts have struggled to understand this new form of trademark use. The case began in 2008 when M&S bought the Google AdWord ‘Interflora’, to make its floristry services visible as a sponsored link when browsers entered the word into the Google search engine.

Litigation ensued, with Interflora arguing that acquiring ‘Interflora’ as a keyword amounted to infringement of its trademark rights.

The case eventually came to trial at the High Court of Justice of England and Wales. Judge Richard Arnold delivered his decision in 2013, finding in favour of Interflora based on the fact that average consumers would have had difficulty telling the origin of the services provided when seeing their requested search results on Google.

His decision came in light of the Google France case that was decided at the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) in March 2010.

In Google France, the CJEU ruled that the sale and use of targeted search adverts such as AdWords is lawful as long as users are not confused as to origin of the products.

Specifically the CJEU held that in respect of keyword advertising, if a third-party advertiser secures a trademark as a keyword, and does not enable normally informed and reasonably observant users to ascertain whether the goods or services referred to in the sponsored link originated from the proprietor of the trademark, or a connected company, then the bidder is liable for trademark infringement.

According to Peter Brownlow, partner at Bird & Bird, this fed into Judge Arnold’s decision in May 2013, which, rather surprisingly, was set aside in November last year.

Court of Appeals of England and Wales Lord Justices found multiple errors in Judge Arnold’s reasoning, and rather than correct them themselves, they decided to order a complete do-over of the appeal.

The Lord Justices said there were three points in the case where Judge Arnold made significant mistakes.

The first was the burden of proof, in establishing whether the keyword was clear or not.

Brownlow explains that when an advertiser uses an identical mark, the question of whether or not a user would be able to ascertain where goods or services originate from must be clear. In his 2013 decision, Judge Arnold ruled that the burden of proving this was on the advertiser, M&S, and not Interflora.

“The Court of Appeal said that he mistakenly arrived at that decision, because a significant change to the burden of proof had not been intended by the CJEU.”

“If a change were planned, it would have been explicit in the Google France case or any subsequent CJEU cases dealing with keywords and/or trademark infringement.”

“As such, the burden of proof lay squarely on the trademark proprietor.”

Judge Arnold also ran into error by referring to the US concept of initial interest confusion.

The Lord Justices said he was wrong to rely on that concept and it did not apply under UK jurisdiction.

His final mistake occurred when assessing Interflora’s opinion evidence provided by Mr Rose and Mr Prandya.

The Lord Justices held that Judge Arnold applied “too much” weight to Rose’s opinion evidence and his rejection of Prandaya’s evidence was unclear, nor did he explain his reasons for doing so.

While the Lord Justices had issues with Judge Arnold’s judgement, the case also highlights the somewhat grey area of AdWords case law. Simon Miles, partner at Edwin Coe, says AdWords case law is not “cut and dry”’, especially when involving the general public.

“If you’re acting for a brand owner, say Interflora, you can continue to say there is trademark infringement and that you do not need to show public confusion under the Google France test.”

“Advertisers, here M&S, can say that keyword advertising is not essentially objectionable and does not have an impact on the trademark in order to infringe it.”

But Brownlow shares that the basic principles of bidding on a keyword remain “relatively clear” because of a series of judgements from the CJEU.

“The implication this case has it that the Court of Appeals established that the onus is on the trademark proprietor, but this case is simply an issue of fact,” he says.

“It is highlighted by the fact it has been sent back to the High Court for another trial—they need to establish what the facts are.”

Ramsay Monime, partner at Briffa Intellectual Property, adds that Judge Arnold is in the best position and has had the benefit of hearing all the oral evidence of the witnesses.

“In a case like this where the evidence was of huge importance to the parties and the public, it should be sent back to the judge for retrial,” he says.

Both Brownlow and Monime stress that the points of issue should not be the misunderstanding, but the fact-finding aspects, whereas Miles holds that the matter of public interest and opinion evidence can make AdWords and trademark litigation less black and white.

“It’s never going to be completely settled when you’re looking at what the public thinks because that undermines the whole of trademark law.”

Country profiles
The latest country profiles from IPPro The Internet
While Indian fair use is not explicit, provisions exist for the fair dealing of copyright. Rohit Singh and Tina Canneth of Abu-Ghazeleh Intellectual Property delve deeper
An interpretation of the current events exception in Radosavljević is creative, say BDK Advokati's Bogdan Ivanišević and Marko Popović
IPPro Patents

Visit our sister site
for all the latest IP patents news and analysis
Yu-Li Tsai of Deep & Far examines how damages are calculated in patent infringement litigation
A recent amendment will make costly annulments a thing of the past. Gilberto Sanchez of SPECyF explains
New legislation in Turkey promises a swathe of trademark changes. Dr Cahit Suluk of Cahit Suluk Intellectual Property Law Firm explains
A trademark decision clarified ‘against the public order’ as an absolute ground for refusal. Sár and Partners – Danubia Patent & Law Office reports
Bogdan Ivanišević and Marko Popović of BDK Advokati review the recent squabble about copyright protection for ‘routinely created photos’
Alston & Bird recently expanded with a new office focusing on counselling Chinese companies on US intellectual property law. Yitai Hu explains what patent owners face when working across borders
The latest features from IPPro The Internet
The US Supreme Court’s ruling in Star Athletica v Varsity Brands provides a path to copyrightability for pictorial or graphical elements of clothing designs and useful articles. Laura Ganoza and Julie McGinnis of Foley & Lardner explain
As Brexit negotiations begin, it is still unclear where trademarks fit in. But, with two years to get a good deal, the UK government needs to consider all aspects
Join Our Newsletter

Sign up today and never
miss the latest news or an issue again

Subscribe now
Rights holders that want to protect their valuable intellectual property have to be willing to change
Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms are not being used to their full potential, according to IPzen’s Julia Cytrynbaum
India's copyright societies are subject to interim measures that boost transparency. DPS Parmar and Aniruddh Singh of LexOrbis report
Courts are wrestling with the legal definition of users of social networks. Nathalie Dreyfus examines how they have done so far
The BRICS IP Forum and the IP Summit allowed intellectual property professionals to reflect on a topsy-turvy 2016, and hope for a simpler 2017
Experts discuss what brands can do to protect their trademarks online during the Cyber Monday sales, with fakes widely available
The latest interviews from IPPro The Internet