Bodum's. I would argue that if a business is found to be infringing, even the normally acceptable use of a competitor's trademark could be considered in the context of illegal trademark use when determining the intentionality of infringement, as well than in the evaluation of total false impressions. I believe that such an advertisement could constitute another form of confusion of initial interests, or an exacerbation of it, since a consumer could search for "Bodum", see the Williams-Sonoma advertisements, click on the website where he might also come across the “Bodum” branded search results pages.
Thus, the impressions and clicks for Williams-Sonoma's PPC ads targeted to the Bodum keywords could also theoretically have resulted in an even higher potential indemnity in the case. (Williams-Sonoma's PPC ads jewelry retouching service targeting the “Bodum” branded keywords weren't mentioned in the complaint, so I doubt Bodum might have even been aware of them.) Case resolution and results Bodum and Williams-Sonoma agreed to settle the trademark infringement case in April, with prejudice against Williams-Sonoma.
It can reasonably be assumed that the settlement terms were favorable to Bodum. I now see that when searching for 'Bodum' on williams-sonoma.com, the results page contains clear and strong language: We do not sell Bodum branded products. Entering more general keywords may yield results. The page now also features a text reading, "You may also like", which appears above related product search results. The page meta description is now empty. So Bodum probably got what they were looking for.