Apparently, the wisdom of the CJ in its Interflora judgment has left the trademark community slightly puzzled and forces us  (or maybe just this silly blogger) to read the judgment again and again to make sense of it. This blogger will not rush into an assessment of the judgment and will wait to be enlightened by more experienced academics and lawyers. But he would like to voice his concern about the Court's decision to talk of the investment function of the trademark, which, apparently, overlaps, but does not coincide with the advertising function of the trademark. He would also like to ask why the Court went into that trouble, if it were to leave the concept underdeveloped - and he would not accept as a valid answer that it was Interflora that raised the issue. Academic discussion of the increasingly multi-functional concept or notion of a trademark is indeed interesting, but we look to the CJ for guidance, right?

Flowers, if this blogger hurt anyone's feelings .

 Travis with 'Flowers in the Window', from where the title was borrowed here.