Subscribe Via RSSLush Victory Over Amazon, Lush Wins Monumental Trademark Battle
Lush Cosmetics, who has been boycotting Amazon in protest of many of the online retail giant’s business practices such as its attitude to UK tax, has long objected to Amazon.com purchasing the keyword “lush” on Google AdWords and using it to bring searchers to Amazon’s equivalent results, i.e., their rivals. The issue has become a trademark dispute that ended up in court in the UK.
According to TheLawyer.com;
- Lewis Silkin client Lush has won a monumental trademark battle against Amazon at the High Court.
- Online giant Amazon was slammed for directing consumers to products titled ‘lush’ despite the fact ethical cosmetics company was boycotting the site.
- John Baldwin QC, sitting as a deputy judge in the Chancery division, held that Amazon had damaged the “origin function, advertising function and investment function” of the Lush trademark after directing consumers to similar cosmetics on its site.
Amazon has been buying advertising, including the Lush keyword, on Google, and having their site search redirect Lush searchers to rival cosmetic products so potentially misleading consumers into thinking rival products were in fact Lush-branded product.
Amazon argued that directing consumers to similar products was a common feature of online shopping and said customers would soon realise the products were not Lush branded, but Baldwin QC said: “I reject Mr Carr’s argument to the effect that the average consumer would, without difficulty, ascertain that the goods referred to by the ad were not the goods of or connected with Lush.”
He went on to say: “I reject the contention that the average consumer who was typing Lush into the search box would think that the drop down menu reference to Lush Bath Bombs was a reference merely to products which were similar to or competitive with the Lush product.” …
“The consumer is likely to think that Amazon is a reliable supplier of a very wide range of goods and he would not expect Amazon to be advertising Lush soap for purchase if it were not in fact available for purchase.”
In a press release Simon Chapman, partner at Lewis Silkin (which represented Lush) said: “The judgment provides much needed clarity with regards exactly how far third parties can go in their use of trademarks to generate sponsored advertisements or direct web-traffic for commercial gain unrelated to the trademark owner. There is no doubt that many online retailers will need to reconsider their approach with regards the promotion of and marketing activity in support of alternative products to ensure they do not fall foul of today’s important precedent.”
- The husband and wife team behind the Lush handmade soap and cosmetics company will see the production of a shower gel in the Christopher North range (named after Amazon’s UK boss Christopher North), which has the tagline: “Rich, thick and full of it”.
Conclusion: Lush won their case.
