Retail surgery: Can you explain the legal wrangle between Marks & Spencer and Interflora over online search terms, and what are the wider implications for retailers?

This particular case has come about because Marks & Spencer has paid Google to promote the retailer’s flower delivery service in sponsored link search results whenever an online shopper looks up Interflora’s name.

Essentially, the retailer has been “piggy-backing” on Google searches. Marks & Spencer has described this as an “industry wide practice”. It is also accused of bidding on misspelt versions of the term ‘Interflora’ - ‘inter-flora’, for instance.

Should Interflora win the fight, it will have a major impact on retail in general because it will set a precedent that could give rise to a deluge of similar disputes.

Matthew Whiteway, client services director at search engine marketing agency Greenlight, says for online marketing teams specifically, a ruling in favour of Interflora would mean “there would likely

be a time of panic, with marketers frantically reviewing their AdWords accounts to ensure they do not run the risk of appearing for any of their competitors’ trademarked terms”.

Whiteway adds that this area of paid-for search advertising is murky, complicated further by the fact trademark policies across the other two major search engines - yahoo and Bing - are different.

But with Google’s 90% market share of online search in the UK, retail online marketing teams’ main concerns must lie with the Interflora case if they are to ensure they do become entangled in similar legal battles in the future.