The cosmetics company Lush, which refuses to sell through Amazon, has sued Amazon for trademark infringement because searching for "lush" there finds other products.

I sympathize with Lush's motivation, but I think it is wrong on this case. "Lush" is an English word and everyone has the right to use it as such. If Amazon's search facility searches for any English word, it would be wrong to ban this one as an exception. However, I see no harm in requiring Amazon to present a clear statement that these products are not made by Lush, and that Lush does not sell through Amazon.

In directory.fsf.org, if you search for names of nonfree programs, we don't show them (they don't qualify to be listed); instead we show their free counterparts. It would be unfortunate if we were banned from doing this.

I think Lush is more entitled to prevail in regard to Amazon's adwords articles.

The use of the vague term "intellectual property" where "trademark" would have been clearer added avoidable confusion to the article. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html for why that term spreads confusion.

See stallman.org/amazon.html for many other reasons to refuse to buy from Amazon. See stallman.org/ebooks.pdf for why the Kindle and Kindle ebooks are an attack on your freedom.