The fact is that on both the natural listings and the sponsored listings the correct company which you requested has been displayed in the top position and as such google has performed well. The added information provides additional consumer choice if you really like buying your flowers from interflora then go on – click through and do so, if you want more choice and maybe a different price or delivery schedule the choice is available.

Don’t confuse patent and copyright law with trademark. Trademark law is there to stop someone claiming to be or claiming to have an affiliation with someone when they are / have not. M&S do not suggest they are anyone else and their advert is clear about who they are and so is their web site.

Google is a supplier of information. It must be forced to supply information that is correct and not misleading.

Interflora has made a grave mistake by not adding Google Inc to this court case. Google and Google Adwords are not ISPs (and therefore not a “mere conduit” under UK and EU law) but Google Adwords is an advertising medium and must therefore adhere to trademark law.

Interflora, if you lose this case, it’s because you’ve failed to sue the correct party – Google Inc. What was that about “First, do no evil”? Showing competitor listings in Adwords triggered by trademarks protected under law is evil. Note that SERPS and Adwords are two very different things – one is a result of a clever algorithm and one is simply a cash of who has the most cash.

I wonder if they have anything to add to the discussion?

I did say in one of my posts that I had deviated from the case in point and admitted that in the case M&S were in fact making it clear who they were and so in this case there is not a problem of fraud.

As this is a test case it will have ramifications that reach further than these two companies alone, it will set a president for paid online (brand) advertising in the UK, I would suggest that there are a lot of online marketers watching this case with anticipation.

So just to be clear, I had said that in this specific case the only problem I see is M&S leaching on Interfloras’ brand awareness (and this is only a problem online for the reason I mention about the form of travel around the internet).

I hear your argument about this being just another form of competition (and sammy made the point that if the consumer wants Interflora they can click on that ad). It is a compelling argument that I am sure will be taken into account in the court case.

I have made my current preference clear, I will of course be watching the case with interest and an open mind to the fairness of this tactic.

I will not be able to reply to any further comments due to time limitations, I thank you all for you input, it has been interesting. I will read future comments but unlikely to respond.

Regards to all.