Jones Day's Trademark Suit Against Blockshopper.com

There's an article here.  Oh, and here.  Oh, and this one.

It's interesting, and frightening in the underlying information.  There's a webpage, blockshopper.com that tracks who buys what property and for how much in certain upscale neighborhoods.  Some Jones Day lawyers bought property in  those neighborhoods, and that truthful, factual information was posted on the site, along with truthful factual links to JonesDay.com and truthful, factual links to the individuals' bios on that webpage. 

What happened next is what is curious: Jones Day filed this complaint... for trademark infringement.   The sum of the alleged confusing and illegal conduct is using a link to the firm's website and linking to the two lawyers' bios who bought houses.  Now, I think the webpage is a bit frightening and seems to invade the individuals' privacy (not as a legal matter, or at least I don't know that, but certainly normatively to me it does).  But, trademark infringement?  Unfair competition?

I agree with others who have wondered about the merits of the suit.  Stay tuned.

DISCLAIMER:  To be clear, this is NOT a website about Jones, Day.  If you are confused, you should go to jonesday.com, and not "legalethicsforum.com" to find out information about Jones Day.  I suppose in the comments to this story, call them "Day Jones" to avoid confusion! :-)

Comments

[Paul Alan Levy]

You do not mention here what seems to me the most significant ethical lapse that this situation reveals about Jones Day. In one of Jones Day's previous trademark enforcement actions against the use of its name online -- cited in its complaint to show its vigilance -- Jones obtained ex parte preliminary relief against the creator of a "gripe site" through a memorandum of law that omitted mention of contrary, controlling legal authority. The previous case was filed in 2005 in the Northern District of Ohio, but failed to mention two key Sixth Circuit cases decided in 2003 and 2004 respectively. See http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2008/09/trademark-abuse.html bullet point 3. Then, after the defendant unsuccessfully sought dismissal pro se for lack of jurisdiction and on the merits, without noticing the Sixth Circuit cases, Jones Day moved for an award of fees on the ground that the case was "exceptional." Again, Jones Day did not mention that these controlling Sixth Circuit authorities supported the defendant.

The gripe site operator was in England; I have no idea whether Jones Day ever enforced the judgment for fees.

[Marc J. Randazza]

Unfortunately, large firms get a pass on this kind of behavior. Neither judges nor state bars are good about imposing sanctions on this kind of sleazy behavior -- and big moneyed clients don't want ethical attorneys, they want attorneys who get the job done no matter what it takes.

[Marc J. Randazza]

Unfortunately, large firms get a pass on this kind of behavior. Neither judges nor state bars are good about imposing sanctions on this kind of sleazy behavior -- and big moneyed clients don't want ethical attorneys, they want attorneys who get the job done no matter what it takes.

[David Hricik]

I'm just sort of floored because the suit seems to fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Day Jones's lawyers who bought the property, now I can understand them feeling their "privacy" invaded (quoted since I'm not sure that exists any more, but I wouldn't want my house purchase put up on the Internet), but that's not something trademark law addresses.

[BandarBush]

I agree that most of the complaint is nonsense and should be taken care of on a 12(b)(6) motion. The infringement and dilution claims are laughable, as are most of the state law claims, but they do have an at least colorable argument with respect to their §43(a) (unfair competition) claim. I'm unaware of any precedent but providing links to JonesDay's personnel bios could suggest some sponsorship of their activities. It does seem highly unusual and it is by no means a slam dunk but I think that would survive a motion to dismiss. As for the rest of it, it's a good Rule 11 candidate.

[Michael Kassing]

This is definitely a situation of "Pick your battles".