An important case recently highlighted the use of linking to public records (I should probably say, records available to the public) and linking to publicly available websites and the possible albeit unlikely trademark infringements.
In Jones Day v. BlockShopper LLC, (N.D. Ill. Case No. 08CV04572), Jones Day filed a complaint against BlockShopper for its linking to Jones Day attorney profiles, claiming it violates their service mark.
Details on the story courtesy of Slate:
Last April, startup real estate news site BlockShopper ran the headline “New Jones Day Lawyer Spends $760K on Sheffield” with a link to the bio for the lawyer in question-Jacob Tiedt-from the Web site of his law firm, Jones Day. In July, it ran a similar item about a home purchase by Dan Malone Jr., another Jones Day lawyer, with the link to his Jones Day bio.
Public Citizen weighs in:
Jones Day, a national law firm, found it objectionable when BlockShopper.com, a web site that reports on real estate transactions in tony neighborhoods in several cities, published articles on condo purchases by two associates in its Chicago office. It sued BlockShopper claiming that by mentioning the firm name in headlines in the articles, and by linking to the associates’ bio pages on the Jones Day web site, BlockShopper infringed and diluted its trademark. In a brief co-authored with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Citizen argued that the trademark claims were preposterous and, in any event, were barred by the First Amendment which protects the right to publish truthful information even if the information is about a trademark holder and hence uses the trademark to convey the truth.
Public Citizen also filed an Amicus Brief along with Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) in support of the defendants motion to dismiss.
I often link to the California State Bar’s website when I mention attorneys, so that readers can quickly look to “authoritative” links. I prefer to link to the licensing agency whenever possible, before linking to the persons personal website. I wonder if the State Bar is going to come crashing down on me now?
The case ultimately settled, but what value is the settlement to Jones Day? The settlement agreement requires BlockShopper to simply change the way they link to Jones Day. In this day and age of SEO and relevant links, I don’t know how the new linking requirement will affect pagerank or authority.
So how is BlockShopper to link to Jones Day? Instead of embedding the link to Tiedt like, “Tiedt is an associate,” the site will write “Tiedt (http://www.jonesday.com/jtiedt/) is an associate.” (The agreement also calls on BlockShopper to say that the lawyer in question is employed at Jones Day and that more information about the attorney is on the firm’s Web site.)
How do you feel about a law firm claiming your “linking” is a violation of their trademark or service mark and dictating how you publish? Is this lawsuit just another form of abuse?
RELATED DOCUMENTS
- Memorandum Opinion and Order (11/13/2008)
- Reply Memo in Support of Motion for Leave to File Brief as Amici Curiae (09/24/2008)
- Opposition to Motion for Leave to File Brief as Amici Curiae (09/23/2008)
- Amicus Brief (09/19/2008)
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed! 
March 12th, 2009 at 12:34 am
Hello. Great job. This is a great story. Thanks!