There has been much recent publicity about claims management companies (CMCs) obtaining personal injury cases through such practices as data selling, referral fees, cold-calling and texting. However, little has been heard of so-called ‘free-riding’ or ‘piggy-backing’.

This practice involves a CMC purchasing a competitor’s name as a Google ‘AdWord’. When that name is searched for, the CMC’s name also appears on the same page; and sometimes higher up the page than the name of the firm searched for.

This often misleads the person carrying out the search into believing they are dealing with the firm searched for, or that the CMC forms part of the same organisation. The whole purpose of this practice is to trade on and profit from the other firm’s reputation or trademark.

The European Court has now held in the case of Interflora v Marks & Spencer that free-riding or trading on a firm’s reputation or trademark infringes that firm’s trademark, and that the firm is entitled to prevent a competitor from advertising on this basis. It must follow that the firm would be entitled to damages for any losses incurred as a result of this practice.

Increased competition in legal markets - particularly the personal injury market - makes it very important that a legal firm protects its trademark and takes the necessary action to prevent its infringement. If it does not do so, this is likely to lead to a significant loss of profitability.

I would be interested to hear if other personal injury firms have been victims of such a practice.

Neil Williams, managing director, Harris Fowler, Taunton