In relation to an earlier comment when a product becomes the industries brand, such as Hoover being for a vacuum cleaner, then I am pretty positive that the wordmark becomes defunct and you do not have a position to argue.

However in the case of interflora it is a known brand name not an industry term. I dont say I am going to buy interflora, I say I am going to buy flowers. Then you ask where from, answer the florist, or online florist. I don’t buy flowers often and so when I type interflora I expect interflora. If I wanted choice I would enter florist or flowers.

In discussions about looking through the yellow pages, there is not a category interflora, it is a category florist so then you have open choice.

I find it ridiculous to claim this is offering more choice by allowing others to tag onto to a brand, as already previously mentioned people chose interflora to look up.

However as a compromise to the idea of a free market, how about when a brandname (which is a registered trademark/wordmark) that this sits top of the search engine (not a paid advert like currently for interflora) and that the other adverts sit in the side bar rather than above the actual website. With this format there can be no confusion about clicking on the wrong website. Also the advert is not in the direct line of vision so people who want a choice can still see it but it requires slight extra effort. For example as previously mentioned with McDonalds and burger king, I don’t walk through the burger king in order to get to the McDonalds but it is fine if it is sitting next to it.

Looking forward to comments

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.