Interflora v Marks and Spencer: court refuses to block M&S’s Google Ads keyword use pending retrial
InterfloravMarks and Spencer
- Court
- High Court
- Judgment
- 2 December 2014
- Citation
- [2014] EWHC 4168 (Ch)
Courts won't freeze a competitor out of the market on an interim basis unless the merits clearly favour you.
Interflora tried to stop Marks and Spencer bidding on the word "interflora" as a Google Ads keyword while the two sides waited for a retrial. The court said no, because it couldn't say either side was clearly likely to win.
What happened
This was the latest round in a long dispute over M&S buying the word "interflora" as a Google Ads keyword, so its flower delivery service appeared in search results when people searched for Interflora. An earlier trial had gone against M&S, but the Court of Appeal set that judgment aside and ordered a full retrial. While waiting for that retrial, Interflora asked the court for an interim injunction, a temporary order, to stop M&S bidding on the keyword again in the meantime. M&S resisted, arguing this was a case touching on its freedom of commercial expression.
What did the court decide in Interflora v Marks and Spencer?
The judge found that M&S's right to freedom of expression under Article 10 was engaged, but it wasn't decisive, since this was commercial speech in a competitive marketplace rather than core free speech. More importantly, the judge found the underlying merits of the trademark dispute were too finely balanced for Interflora to show it was more likely than not to win at the retrial, the threshold needed under section 12(3) of the Human Rights Act for this kind of order. The judge also found the harm to each side if the court got it wrong was roughly comparable, and rejected the idea that M&S's current absence from bidding on the keyword was a "status quo" worth protecting, since that absence only existed because of an injunction that had itself been overturned. The application was refused and Interflora was ordered to pay most of M&S's costs.
What we learned from this
- What I'd take from this is that winning an earlier round doesn't guarantee you can lock in that advantage while a retrial is pending, if the underlying merits are genuinely close.
- An interim injunction needs you to show you're likely to win, not just that you might. A finely balanced case won't clear that bar.
- Courts will look hard at whether a 'status quo' actually reflects the true legal position, or just the temporary effect of an order that's since been overturned.
- Where a case touches on free expression, including commercial advertising choices, that can raise the threshold a claimant has to meet for an interim order.
Things to be aware of
- This was an interim, procedural ruling about what happens pending a retrial, not a final decision on whether M&S's keyword use infringed Interflora's trademarks.
- The substantive question of infringement was left open to be decided afresh at the retrial, so this judgment doesn't tell us who ultimately won on the merits.
- The costs order here (Interflora paying most of M&S's costs) relates only to this interim application, not necessarily the costs of the wider litigation.
The businesses involved
Interflora Inc
Operator of the Interflora flower delivery network, through which independent florists fulfil orders placed under the Interflora brand.
- Note
- Registered outside the UK
Marks and Spencer Plc
UK retailer that also runs its own flower delivery service, which competed with Interflora's network and was the subject of the underlying Google Ads keyword dispute.
What others said about it
- CMS described the case as the latest instalment in a long running saga between M&S and Interflora in the English courts, reflecting how protracted this litigation became.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] EWHC 4168 (Ch) 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.
