Jones Day Abuses Trademark Law And Gets Its Way: Bullies Blockshopper Into Caving

from the terrible-news dept

Thu, Feb 19th 2009 12:59pm — Mike Masnick

Somehow we missed this news last week, but Consumerist alerts us to the very upsetting news that BlockShopper was forced to cave in and settle the absolutely ridiculous lawsuit filed against it by Jones Day. The lawsuit was a clear abuse of trademark law designed to silence a small company, and it looks like the judge did everything possible to help Jones Day achieve its goal. I've spoken with a few Jones Day lawyers who have admitted (quietly, of course) that they're embarrassed their firm did this, but the details of the story seem to get worse with each new step. One thing that seems clear, based on this: Jones Day is not a firm worth working with.

If you don't recall the details, Blockshopper is a pretty basic site. It would post news about people who had bought property in certain cities, including Chicago. All it was doing was publishing public information, based on government records, about who was buying property in certain neighborhoods. Apparently, two Jones Day lawyers purchased homes in a part of Chicago covered by Blockshopper. So it wrote about them, and included links to the Jones Day website, indicating that's where they worked. This was accurate, factual information found through public sources. It was not a violation of anyone's privacy, nor was it a violation of trademark law.

However, Jones Day, as a big bad law firm, apparently had no problem suing Blockshopper claiming that it was trademark infringement to link to the Jones Day website, in part because Blockshopper deep-linked the individual's names in the post to their profile pages on the Jones Day website. That is ridiculous by any standard, and an obvious abuse of trademark law. It is simply not a trademark violation to link to a company's website using its name or the name of an employee at the firm -- and the folks at Jones Day obviously know this. But since they are a huge law firm, they can pressure tiny websites to obey. Even worse... the judge in the case helped out. Rather than tossing out the case immediately and reprimanding Jones Day, the judge supposedly told the operator of Blockshopper:

"Do you know, young man, how much money it's going to cost you to defend yourselves against Jones Day?"

In other words, the judge wanted Blockshopper to cave. The case started to get some public attention, and a bunch of public interest groups, including Public Knowledge and the EFF filed briefs with the court. At this point Jones Day should have backed down and perhaps issued an apology for abusing trademark law to shut up Blockshopper. Instead, it asked the judge to not even allow the briefs from those groups, saying that because those briefs sided with one party, they were not legit. Apparently Jones Day is unaware that most amici briefs are favoring one side or the other. Stunningly, the judge agreed with Jones Day and refused to even look at the submitted briefs, and also refused to dismiss the case.

As we noted at the time, this would significantly increase the likelihood of Blockshopper settling, because it would (as the judge had noted originally) get expensive quickly. And, indeed, that's exactly what appears to have happened. Blockshopper has agreed to change the way it links to Jones Day, no longer using any anchor text other than the URL itself. As Slate explains:

Instead of posting "Tiedt is an associate," the site will write "Tiedt (http://www.jonesday.com/jtiedt/) is an associate."

There is simply no legal rationale for Blockshopper to agree to this. There is only the fact that it was going to get expensive to fight such a lawsuit and the judge seemed to clearly favor Jones Day, based on the events so far. Illinois does have a (relatively new) anti-SLAPP law, but it seems like we could definitely use stronger anti-SLAPP rules to stop this sort of abuse of the law to bully small websites. Anyway, you can see the "agreement" below, where Blockshopper agrees that it will not embed deep links to Jones Day's website:

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: deep linking, linking, trademark
Companies: blockshopper, jones day

45 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Killer_Tofu (profile), 19 Feb 2009 @ 1:13pm

This is BS
The judge should be removed.
He obviously doesn't give a rats ass about what the law is and is willing to side with a company he for some reason favors. Whether the reason is he got paid or used to work there, I don't know, but its about as fishy as it gets.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Feb 2009 @ 1:22pm

Re: This is BS
The problem with most judges is that they're also lawyers. Draw your own conclusions. Something about being on the bench makes them daft in short order.

Aren't judges supposed to be impartial? Shouldn't the judge have told Jones Day to stuff it, and dismiss the suit? Wasn't that the proper thing to do? Wasn't that the ETHICAL thing to do? Oh, right, ethics and lawyers, water and oil.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Shore, 19 Feb 2009 @ 1:26pm

Jones Day
It looks like Mike is baiting Jones Day to sue Techdirt using the same lame reasoning. I counted 15 links to Jones Day.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Feb 2009 @ 1:50pm

Re: Jones Day
good, they have connections to fight back.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Feb 2009 @ 1:50pm

More Illinois politics, I mean, after offering a senate seat for sale, what else could happen in Illinois that would surprise you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Feb 2009 @ 1:51pm

You miscounted, there are 17 links to Jones Day.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Feb 2009 @ 1:54pm

So who else read
Instead of posting "Tiedt is an associate," the site will write "Tiedt (http://www.jonesday.com/jtiedt/) is an associate."

as Tiedit is an Ass ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Poster, 19 Feb 2009 @ 1:55pm

I see what you did there. Also, Jones Day should be ashamed of themselves, and anyone who thinks Jones Day was in the right on this is an idiot. This was a horrible decision by a horrible company, and I'm hoping all this negative attention comes back to bite them on the ass.

Jerkoffs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Feb 2009 @ 2:00pm

"The lawsuit was a clear abuse of trademark law designed to silence a small company, and it looks like the judge did everything possible to help Jones Day achieve its goal"

Nice to see the Masnicks maintain a far greater expertise on the law than any Judge.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Poster, 19 Feb 2009 @ 2:03pm

Re:
But it IS an abuse of trademark law.

Also, hi Mr. Jones Day corporate shill!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
some old guy, 19 Feb 2009 @ 2:04pm

Re:
Nice to see the Masnicks maintain a far greater expertise on the law than any Judge.

It's pretty easy for a layman to spot corruption.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike (profile), 19 Feb 2009 @ 2:13pm

Re:
Nice to see the Masnicks maintain a far greater expertise on the law than any Judge.

I love these types of smears. They attack me personally but give nothing to support their position. So convincing.

Considering the number of lawyers who weighed in on this case, all pointing to what an abuse of trademark law this was, I think it is, quite clearly, an abuse of trademark law.

Would you like to supply at least a shred of evidence to the contrary?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Feb 2009 @ 2:16pm

"...the judge supposedly told the operator of Blockshopper:.."
so your not sure what happened but you want to be outraged ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike (profile), 19 Feb 2009 @ 2:32pm

Re:
so your not sure what happened but you want to be outraged ?

It's "you're" not "your" by the way.

And I'm not sure what you mean in saying that I'm not sure what happened. The timeline of events is pretty clear. Are you suggesting something did not happen?

This is the same "Anonymous Coward" above who attacked me without providing any facts to the contrary, so I guess it's no surprise that he did it again.

For your information, if you want to critique something someone wrote, it helps to provide counter evidence. If you can't do that, we all just assume you have no argument.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Feb 2009 @ 2:36pm

Re: Re:
"Would you like to supply at least a shred of evidence to the contrary?"

The judge and the number of lawyers who dissagree with you.

The fact that your sure of the facts of the case you are blogging about "...the judge supposedly told...".

The fact that you often give legal opinions in situations that completely confuse you (which render your opinion completely worthless).

I could go on but I don't want to rant like a Masnick.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Poster, 19 Feb 2009 @ 2:38pm

Re: Re: Re:
That's not evidence. Enjoy being a failure.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Feb 2009 @ 2:42pm

Re: Re:
try looking up "supposedly" !
[ link to this | view in thread ]
inc, 19 Feb 2009 @ 2:49pm

i sense a google bomb coming
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NullOp, 19 Feb 2009 @ 2:52pm

The Company
If your company does things that embarass you or are just plain unethical have the guts to stand up and leave. Having worked for such a company I can tell you its better to be gone than to work for such a company or such a group of people!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TW Burger, 19 Feb 2009 @ 3:03pm

Power Mad
Jones Day
Jones Day
Jones Day
Jones Day
Jones Day
There, they can sue me too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jo, 19 Feb 2009 @ 3:35pm

Reverse Streisand Effect?
Anyone thought of this?

What if the idea was to show everyone that they can influence a case in their favor and attract new clients as to sue anyone with a completely stupid/bogus claim?

The way things have been going on lately I think this serves as a great example that money talks and bullshit walks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike (profile), 19 Feb 2009 @ 3:39pm

Re: Re: Re:
The judge and the number of lawyers who dissagree with you.

Um. What about all the lawyers who pointed out how this was an abuse of trademark law?

The fact that you often give legal opinions in situations that completely confuse you

Hmm. That is not a fact, it's an opinion. And can you explain what situations "completely confuse" me.

I find it amusing that you still have failed to give one shred of evidence as to why this would be a legitimate trademark lawsuit.

I'm guessing it's because you can't.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Murdock (profile), 19 Feb 2009 @ 3:51pm

You aren't linking deep enough...
While I appreciate the effort of everyone linking to Jones Day you are missing the point.

Jones Day that got upset about deep linking. Maybe it was Wendy A. Aeschlimann or Robert Dean Avery (Partner) maybe even Lynn Leland Coe, who really knows> I imagine it is someone on this Jones Day Professional search page in Chicago though.

I'm sure Mike M. can let us know which people it was, right Mike? Make you could update the article.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Poster, 19 Feb 2009 @ 3:55pm

Re: You aren't linking deep enough...
How about Eileen Falvey or Oliver Passavant or James L. Wamsley III?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
anymouse, 19 Feb 2009 @ 4:28pm

New Slogan
"Jones Day, if we can force a settlement when we have absolutely no legal standing whatsoever, just imagine what we can do for you..."

"Jones Day, when you care enough to buy the best (Judges, that is)."

I agree that this is probably more high profile 'marketing' than anything else. They have proved that they can force companies to settle when there is no legal reason for them to, so now they can go after all those clients who have a 'small or slim' chance at winning, and they can promote the fact that they can probably force a settlement even when their client has no case...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josh, 19 Feb 2009 @ 5:30pm

email...
Look we can send tiedt an email!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Feb 2009 @ 6:04pm

There is simply no legal rationale for Blockshopper to agree to this.

Perhaps if you read the various proceedings before the federal district court you might gain a slightly different perspective. The proceedings can be found at:

http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/jones-day-v-blockshopper-llc

The court's opinion and order on Blockshopper's Motion to Dismiss is quite comprehensive and informative.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Feb 2009 @ 6:14pm

A lot of poles in the water ... how's the fishing here today?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Feb 2009 @ 7:07pm

Instead of stronger anti-SLAAP laws, I think a new law should be initiated by this... the bitch-SLAAP law, wherein the defendant is allowed to slap the piss out of anyone that favors such asinine rulings and tactics.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike (profile), 19 Feb 2009 @ 7:34pm

Re:
The court's opinion and order on Blockshopper's Motion to Dismiss is quite comprehensive and informative.

Are you serious? We must be reading different documents.

Since you didn't link to the actual document, I will:

http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2008-11-13-Memorandum%20Opinion%20an d%20Order%20in%20Jones%20Day%20v.%20Blockshopper.pdf

that's hardly "informative." It just highlights how wrong this situation is. The idea that linking to the site can be seen as possibly confusing or an endorsement by the Jones Day is so laughable it's scary that someone actually thinks it's legitimate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Feb 2009 @ 8:05pm

I've said it before...
A good lawyer knows the law, a great lawyer knows the judge.

And seriously, if you're faced with a biased judge, an anti-SLAPP law isn't going to do you a bit of good.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
timstevens, 19 Feb 2009 @ 8:21pm

don't forget to profile the judge too
you know, name, work address, cell phone number, google map etc.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Feb 2009 @ 8:54pm

Re: Re:
Perhaps your views concerning Judge Darrah's legal acumen and temperament would be more effective if directed to the Chief Judge of the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois: Chief Judge James F. Holderman.

Merely as an aside, if the presiding judge was wrong in his application of the law to the defendants' Motion to Dismiss the federal and state claims, was he also wrong in dismissing from the case the two individual defendants?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Feb 2009 @ 11:49pm

How about NAMING the
lawyers and the judge IN THE ARTICLE. Nothing like public humiliation to shame people into doing the right thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
a Chicagoin, 20 Feb 2009 @ 1:24am

And who exactly is this "judge" so that I may make sure NOT to vote to retain him at the next election?

"do you know how much it will cost you to defend yourself in this case?"
What BULLSHIT!
I expect JUDGES to deal in JUSTICE.
Sadly most of them are just spoiled (as in rotten) old lawyers, fire the lot of them, over and over till they remember what their actual job is supposed to be!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TDR, 20 Feb 2009 @ 7:37am

If the JD lawyers were so embarassed by this whole thing, why didn't they fight it? Why didn't they leave and go in pro bono on Blockshopper's side?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2009 @ 8:00am

Re:
Federal district court judges are not elected. They are appointed by the President and subject to approval by the Senate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
anonymouse, 20 Feb 2009 @ 10:09am

Re: You aren't linking deep enough...
@Murdock

you can just tweak the url for the search page and you get a list of their employees worldwide... to do that just do not specify any region code at all, like this, or an even shorter url, like this. Currently that list has 2548 results (bios). Feel free to sort the list by title, name or office/country.

For other languages, just use the drop-down in the upper-right corner of that page (or this one) and just press the search button on the form, without entering any data.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What???, 20 Feb 2009 @ 10:58am

Maybe it's just me . . .
But when I double clicked on the document, it opened up a paper titled "911: Descent into Tyranny," with the subtitle "The New World Order's Plans to Turn Earth into a Prison Planet."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Grae, 20 Feb 2009 @ 12:16pm

Re: How about NAMING the
Judge John W. Darrah

Jones Day Lawyer Jacob Tiedt

Jones Day Lawyer Dan Malone

Honestly Darrah just seems out of touch and biased, (the guy is 71 years old) and Tiedt and Malone are just thin skinned softies who live under the illusion that their public information should be private. Being lawyers, they turned to fill the perceived square hole problem with the only thing they had in their toolbox - round lawsuit pegs.

On a side note, they need to get new photographers, out of a random sampling of their associates almost all of them had very soulless pictures.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sluggo, 21 Feb 2009 @ 10:24pm

/. slamming JonesDay
These litigious bastards are getting slammed pretty hard over at slashdot. Funny stuff...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Max Wellins, 22 Feb 2009 @ 10:31am

Indirect Linking?
I frequently use TinyURL and other services. I wonder how this would work...can they argue my intent was to link to their site, or can I counter that I'm not directly linking?

I'm in Illinois, know for honest politicians and judges worldwide, so this is strictly hypothetical. But as a web developer, I'm a little concerned about the potential effects of this case.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Russell Shaw, 27 Feb 2009 @ 10:02pm

Jones Day Abuses Trademark Law And Gets Its Way
www.jonesdaysucks.com is already taken but www.deepLinksToJonesDay.com, www.embeddedDeepLinksToJonesDay.com, www.jonesDayJerkOffs.com, www.assJonesAssDay.com, www.abusiveJonesDay.com, www.JonesDickheadsDay.com, www.GiveJonesDayShit.com, all are (as of this posting) still available.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
KP, 22 Oct 2009 @ 11:54am

JD
I started a court case against Jones Day in the UK for groundless threats of infringement proceedings to stop their bullying, harassment etc. That case was started prior to them filing in the US, which they should not have done given the fact that there already existed a court case between the parties. A judgement obtained in the United States is not enforceable in the UK as the two countries have no reciprocal agreement. That however did not stop Jones Day from continuously using that order in the UK against hosting companies in order to get my website turned off. They tried to get my domain names but I still own them. My case against them which was in the UK is now in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. They picked on the wrong person. I'll never let them go until I get justice. They are thieves and liars out and out and I dare them to sue me in the UK for libel. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to defend myself in a libel case brought by them. Here kitty, kitty, kitty, come on take me on now if you dare, I didn't know the law at that time, I only knew I was right, now try me, you are a multi billion dollar law firm aren't you? so what the f**k are you doing running from a litigant in person. Pussies! www.JonesDays.com, www.jonesDayLLP.com not so powerfull are you!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dolly Kanginan, 21 Apr 2016 @ 11:11pm

Blockshopper
Just wait until your name shows in the blockshopper.com website and your polite request to remove the name is denied. This website is creepy by publishing names and many personal details of home buyers. The information published may be public in nature, but doing so in commercial manner is not right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]