Interflora v Marks and Spencer: Court of Appeal orders a retrial and sorts out the costs
InterfloravMarks and Spencer
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Judgment
- 12 November 2014
- Citation
- [2014] EWCA Civ 1448
Winning an appeal doesn't end a case. The costs and next steps can still take a separate hearing to sort out.
Interflora and Marks and Spencer could not agree how the Court of Appeal's earlier ruling should be put into effect. The court sent the trademark infringement claims back for a full retrial and sorted out who pays what in the meantime.
What happened
Interflora and Marks and Spencer had already been through a substantive Court of Appeal judgment in their long running dispute over M&S buying "Interflora" as a Google AdWords keyword. But the two sides couldn't agree the detail of the order that would put that judgment into effect. They disagreed about how much of the case should be retried, who would pay the costs of the earlier stages, and what would happen to money already paid between them while the case was ongoing. The Court of Appeal was asked to settle these disputed terms.
What did the court decide in Interflora v Marks and Spencer?
The court ordered a full retrial of the remaining trademark infringement claims, under section 10(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 and Article 9(1)(a) of the Community Trademark Regulation, before a different High Court judge. It left the costs of the earlier trial and pre-trial stages for that new judge to decide. On the costs of the three separate appeals, M&S was awarded its costs of two of them, with Interflora recovering the costs of the third, the two amounts to be set off against each other. The court ordered M&S to be paid £160,000 on account of costs within 21 days, and ordered repayment to M&S of £1,100,000 it had previously paid under the original High Court order.
What we learned from this
- What I'd take from this is that a trademark dispute doesn't end when one court rules. Here, even after a substantive Court of Appeal judgment, the parties still had to fight over how it would be carried out, and the case itself went back for a full retrial.
- If you win on appeal, it's worth budgeting for the costs process itself taking further time and legal spend before any money actually changes hands.
- Interim payments made during a long running case can be ordered to be repaid if the final outcome changes. Don't treat them as settled.
- Where a case is only partly won on appeal, courts can split costs between the parties and set the amounts off against each other rather than one side paying everything.
Things to be aware of
- This ruling is about procedure and costs, not about whether M&S's use of the Interflora keyword actually infringed. That question was sent back for a fresh trial.
- The £1.1 million repayment reflects money paid under an earlier order and doesn't represent damages awarded against M&S in this judgment.
- Costs of the original trial and pre-trial stages were left open, for the judge handling the retrial to decide later.
The businesses involved
Interflora Inc
Operator of a global flower delivery network that works with independent florists. It brought the original trademark infringement claim over M&S's use of 'Interflora' as a Google AdWords keyword.
- Note
- Registered outside the UK
Marks and Spencer Plc
UK retailer that also runs its own flower delivery service. It used 'Interflora' as a Google AdWords keyword, which led to the infringement dispute.
What others said about it
- CMS noted this judgment came as the latest stage in a long running saga between the two companies, focused on settling the terms of the order rather than the underlying merits.Source: Cms, November 2014
How we can help
If something in this case sounds familiar, talk it through with us. The first call is free for new clients.
This page is for information purposes only and does not constitute trademark advice or guidance. Summary drafted with AI assistance from the published judgment and checked by The Trademark Helpline (how we write these). Judgment: [2014] EWCA Civ 1448 on Find Case Law, published under the Open Justice Licence. Company details from Companies House; trademark counts from the UK trademark register. Last reviewed 27 October 2026. Report an error.
