Big Law Firm, Jones Day, Abusing Trademark Law To Stop Website From Reporting Public Info
from the abuse-of-power dept
We've seen all sorts of cases of companies abusing trademark law over the years, but this latest one may be the most questionable -- and tragically, it may actually work. It involves a site, BlockShopper that's basically a blog tracking publicly available info on real estate sales in certain neighborhoods around the country. It recently had two posts about associates at the big law firm, Jones Day, buying property in Chicago, listing out the details, including the fact that the lawyers worked at Jones Day with their photos. Jones Day has sued the website for trademark infringement. This seems highly questionable on a number of fronts.
Paul Alan Levy from Public Citizen describes what an incredible abuse of trademark law this is:
According to Jones Day, linking to its web site dilutes its trademark and creates a likelihood of confusion. But that is preposterous. The link is in connection with a comment on Jones Day; when a trademark is used to comment on the trademark holder, the use reinforces the association with the trademark holder, rather than blurring it, and besides use for commentary is expressly protected as fair use under the Lanham Act as amended in 2006. Moreover, nobody could visit the BlockShopper web site and think that it is sponsored by or affiliated with Jones Day, even if they follow the links from BlockShopper's mention of Jones Day associates to Jones Day's own web site. That is what web sites do � they link to other web sites (that's what makes it a "World Wide Web").As Levy notes, based on Jones Day's argument, anyone who writes about the law firm may be liable for trademark infringement, but that's ridiculous. Tragically, it sounds like the judge in the case is ignoring all of this. The judge not only agreed to a temporary restraining order against BlockShopper, but also told the site's owner:
Indeed, throughout the first paragraph above, I used Jones Day's name (because I am writing about that firm) and linked to Jones Day's web site and elsewhere. Is Public Citizen equally liable for trademark infringement and dilution? If Jones Day is right here, it is hard to see how the Web could survive.
"Do you know, young man, how much money it's going to cost you to defend yourselves against Jones Day?"Apparently, actually being on the right side of the law is meaningless.
And before people bring up questions of copyright or privacy, Jones Day isn't suing over either of those -- and this is all publicly available information, so it's difficult to see what the privacy claim is. Right now, it just looks like a case of a big law firm bullying the owner of a website because he's done something the firm doesn't like -- and the judge is helping the firm out.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Interesting . . .
I wonder what the connection between this judge and this law firm is, if there is one?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Boycott
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Boycott
sorry. boycott Jones Day - try to get it delinked from any site you can! This is ludicrous! If they don't like people linking to them, let's see what kind of traffic they get when no one knows they exist!!!
either that, or bomb them with a DoS?
dunno, take your pick.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Just counter-sue
Wouldn't it be better to just send cease and desist letters from every site that the law firm's web site links to? Maybe introduce those links as evidence that the law firm is making a bad faith claim, since they *clearly* wouldn't commit the same offense they're charging someone else with committing.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Boycott
Isaac, the amount of traffic they get is as meaningful as the color of my neighbor's door knob. It's a real company, not a blog.
The real problem here is the judge and the fact it's the US. In Europe for instance, Scientology scare tactics didn't work well because defending yourself in court, if you are right, simply doesn't (and shouldn't) cost millions.
The judge's words should be enough to get the judge fired. In a truly correct system, If the law is on the defendant's side, he shouldn't even be required to be present. The judge's mere understanding and interpretation of the law should be enough to rule in his favor.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Nuclear option - someone tell Google...
Someone should let the kind folks at Google know they may be in for a trademark infringement lawsuit for returning any results that include Jones Day... :-)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
SLAPP suit
Jones Day is in New York where there is anti-SLAPP legislation. Time to get help from the EFF or ACLU on this.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Jones Day Sucks
JonesDaySucks.com is available. Lots of possibilities.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
trademark dilution...
The problem with trademark dilution is that in order to sue for it, you have to be a *nationally recognized* trademark and not simply registered. In other words, even if I registered a mark with the feds, unless a good portion of the nation recognized it like they would, say, Keebler or Nike, I couldn't sue for dilution.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
"Do you know, young man, how much money it's going to cost you to defend yourselves against Jones Day?"
Wow. This sounds like a terrible judge.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Why aren't Judges disbarred...
When they abuse the law?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Why aren't Judges disbarred...
because judges decide who gets disbarred
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
"Do you know, young man, how much money it's going to cost you to defend yourselves against Jones Day?"
As Mr. Levy noted in his article, he does not know if the presiding judge actually said what is quoted above. It is only with this important caveat that Mr. Levy proceeds with his article. I confess being surprised that the summary here omits Mr. Levy's caveat.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
BTW, having read JD's original complaint and its amended complaint, it would not surprise me that when the defendant files its answer to the complaint the suit is dismissed based upon the pleadings.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Interesting . . .
They're both lawyers, learned the secret
handshake, took the oath to their craft.
To presume you can represent yourself in
court is insulting, infuriating, demeaning
to those who have invested so much intellectual
capital in learning how to deceive within the
bounds of the law.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Nuclear option - someone tell Google...
looks like they are going to have a lot of work over 300 links to their pages http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLL_en&q=link%3awww.jon esday.com%2f
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
So typical you should release the name of that short sighted Judge, the mob should get involved that judge would make a killing
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Civil lawsuit abuse
If you found this article interesting check out sites: instituteforlegalreform.com and JAIL for Judges, both are grass root level org, that needs our help to correct the terrible injustice and corruption that is a plague on the judicial system of this country.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
As Mr. Levy noted in his article, he does not know if the presiding judge actually said what is quoted above. It is only with this important caveat that Mr. Levy proceeds with his article. I confess being surprised that the summary here omits Mr. Levy's caveat.
MLS, why do you make it sound as if Levy didn't believe that's what the judge says? Levy makes it clear that that's what those present say the judge said. Funny that someone who has been called out on this site for gross exaggerations of the truth, often twisting things and mocking people who disagree with you, would twist Levy's words to make me look bad.
I assume that you have never, not once, repeated a quote from someone heard third hand?
Do you really have nothing better to do?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
BTW, having read JD's original complaint and its amended complaint, it would not surprise me that when the defendant files its answer to the complaint the suit is dismissed based upon the pleadings.
And that makes it ok for JD to have bullied this site? Spoken like a true lawyer...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Stop spreading rumors...
Jones day is a very reputed firm and I don't think they would sue someone if there is no issue. The information in this articles is too skimpy to make any conclusion... so stop spreading rumors.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Judge John W. Darrah
http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=2881
Source: http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2008/09/trademark-abuse.html
From the above source: "...reportedly tried to encourage the defendants to give up their rights by saying “Do you know, young man, how much money it’s going to cost you to defend yourselves against Jones Day?”"
This type of behavior should not be tolerated. Judge Darrah should be removed from his bench for this comment alone if it can be proven he said/wrote it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Stop spreading rumors...
Jones day is a very reputed firm and I don't think they would sue someone if there is no issue. The information in this articles is too skimpy to make any conclusion... so stop spreading rumors.
Which part of the post is a "rumor" as opposed to an actual filed lawsuit? And if you don't think that reputable firms file bogus lawsuits, you haven't been paying attention.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
Levy article, para. 5, last line:
"...if actually made..."
Mr. Levy states this as a disclaimer, and rightly so, because it is hearsay that may or may not be accurate. Perhaps the judge did say something like this in open court, in which case the judge will have opened himself up to substantial criticism (perhaps even professional discipline) for the appearance being partisan, but I prefer to give the judge the benefit of the doubt absent an official transcript of the proceedings.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re:
"And that makes it ok for JD to have bullied this site? Spoken like a true lawyer..."
Dismissal on the pleadings is not commonplace, but having reviewed the complaints (the original and the amended) and the facts alleged in them, it is difficult to see any reasonable possibility that JD could prevail on any of its trademark and unfair competition claims.
Consequently, I expect that the web site will file a motion to dismiss (if it has not already done so), and there is good reason to believe it may be granted.
I am not sure I would agree that JD is being a bully, but I do believe the negative publicity far outweighs any benefit to it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Jones Day
I have had a run in or two with Jones Day myself. I hope BlockShopper sticks to their guns. Get the EFF involved in addition to Public Citizen, once the Streisand effect kicks in this will go away.
Trademark infringement (LOL) get a life Jones Day, this is going to give you tons of very bad PR and bad media exposure.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
EFF and Public Citizen will take this down as an easy SLAPP violation, and with any luck, they'll take down that ignorant, retarded judge while they're at it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Jones Day is not the only one
Jones Day is not the only big law firm that does these kind of things. In fact, even in India, the *really* big law firms don't even allow small guys to speak on an equal platform **in the proper channels**. The control of such monstrous law firms is such that not only free speech but mere presence in, or use of, the **proper channels** just to argue your side, is seen as a threat to their rule and power. So, we small guys have to use their own preached methods of speaking through small legal platforms across the internet...
I have to state that, all said and done, the law is an ass.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Legality and meaning
I'm criminal for being epileptic--or for having a seizure (without warning) while driving, having taken medication properly. The judge instructed the jury to find me guilty of something. A Top Secret clearance during the Vietnam war had already taught me much of the lack of meaning of what we're taught to believe. Somehow, though, I still find myself astounded to be a criminal for being sick (it's probably a side-effect of Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome). At least being a veteran makes me a hero. Well, honorable. Okay, I'm an idiot.
--Glenn
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Best Story of Law Firm Ads
It is a good story created for law firm lawyers.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: SLAPP suit
Exactly what I was thinking. This is exactly why those organizations exist.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Why aren't Judges disbarred...
The State Bar Association handles disbarral, and yes, Judges can be disbarred.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Interesting . . .
Succinct, extremely well proofread, accurate and hysterically funny. Mind you, the Justinian Code isn't about justice; it's about following precedents.
--Glenn
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Jones Day - Bite Me
Highly questionable? Complete horse shit is more like it. Jones Day is obviously a bunch of losers in my opinion. Maybe you should let their clients know.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
So no one here would care if someone posted all the details of your new home purchase.....your name, your picture, your street address, a picture of yopur new home and the purchase price and whatever else on their website?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Nuclear option - someone tell Google...
Well said...
If the precedent is set that a link is a CR infringement then Google can be successfully sued by everyone.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment