ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Research Blogs -> Slaw.ca

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Legal Research

: Slaw.ca

Jones Day Linking Lawsuit

By Steven Matthews

ADVERTISEMENTS

Sarah Bird at SEOmoz has an interesting post regarding the recent Jones Day linking law suit (link to EFF’s amicus brief), where the firm launched a claim against an ecommerce site for using its trademark, “Jones Day”, to refer to the firm in a headline, and link to the firm website, which could lead to confusion over the sponsorship of the site.

Specifically, I found this quote from Sarah’s post very interesting:

“Instead, Jones Day is suing over the use of its name as anchor text for a link to its website. It claims that its mark is being diluted and there is a likelihood of confusion. Yeah right. Can you imagine someone accidentally going to BlockShopper and thinking that it was a law firm site or affiliated with Jones Day just because it links to it? Have any of the managing partners ever used the internet before? Here’s a hint to the folks at Jones Day: There are no tubes. There are only links. The more links to you, the better for you.”

Snark aside, Sarah’s comments seem spot on. There’s also an underlying background story to the site’s publication of real estate purchases by the firm’s attorneys, but that doesn’t seem to be a good reason for preventing another website from linking in, or making reference to the firm’s name. The lack of control over who links into a law firm website is something most firms should be getting used to by now. Obviously, that point hasn’t hit home everywhere.

Why the (ab)use of the legal system like this? I have no clue. But other firms should learn a lesson here: firm sponsored lawsuits that don’t have a favourable perception to the online community, can and will bring about bad publicity. The era of niche commentary is upon us, and someone, somewhere will take exception. The time to mitigate risk on something like this is not after filing the claim, it’s before.

… But that’s my amateur take. And I fully accept that my perspective may be blinded by what’s been published to date. Any of the in-house IP experts here at Slaw seeing this from another perspective?

Full post as published by Slaw.ca on October 16, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0144 secs (new cache)