- 26 A B A 114. As regards (a), the evidence shows that D1 has used an B identical trade mark on identical goods namely, in relation to jewellery. C D Elms deals with this at para 52 and paras 83 to 84 of her 1st affidavit. Qian at para 53(v) of his 2nd affirmation admits the use in the Facebook pages C D but said that they had been removed. E F E 115. As regards (b), the evidence set out in the 1st affidavit of Elms F also shows that D1 has used Pandora as an AdWord on Google. There is G H also evidence as set out at para 56 of Elms’ 1st affidavit that the advertisements have led to complaints from customers who were confused G H that the sites were the plaintiffs’ sites. I J I 116. Mr Clark relied on the preliminary ruling of The European J Court of Justice on 22 September 2011 as set out in Interflora Inc v Marks K L M N O P Q R S T and Spencer PLC [2015] FSR (10) 185 at para 101 to the effect: “ K L … ‘… that the proprietor of a trade mark is entitled to prevent a competitor from advertising — on the basis of a keyword which is identical with the trade mark and which has been selected in an internet referencing service by the competitor without the proprietor’s consent — goods or services identical with those for which that mark is registered, where that use is liable to have an adverse effect on one of the functions of the trade mark. Such use: • adversely affects the trade mark’s function of indicating origin where the advertising displayed on the basis of that keyword does not enable reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant internet users, or enables them only with difficulty, to ascertain whether the goods or services concerned by the advertisement originate from the proprietor of the trade mark or an undertaking economically linked to that proprietor or, on the contrary, originate from a third party; M N O P Q R S T U U V V