<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Interflora vs Marks &amp; Spencer Google AdWords trademark bidding</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelawblog.co.uk/2009/09/03/interflora-vs-marks-spencer-google-adwords-trademark-bidding/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thelawblog.co.uk/2009/09/03/interflora-vs-marks-spencer-google-adwords-trademark-bidding/</link>
	<description>Law news and views</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2009 16:05:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Update on Interflora vs Marks &#38; Spencer AdWords trademark row</title>
		<link>http://www.thelawblog.co.uk/2009/09/03/interflora-vs-marks-spencer-google-adwords-trademark-bidding/#comment-2</link>
		<dc:creator>Update on Interflora vs Marks &#38; Spencer AdWords trademark row</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2009 16:05:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelawblog.co.uk/?p=6#comment-2</guid>
		<description>[...] which we first covered back in December. Unlike a lot of other similar cases this one will probably go the distance simply because of the brands [...] </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] which we first covered back in December. Unlike a lot of other similar cases this one will probably go the distance simply because of the brands [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

