Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Research Blogs -> Slaw.ca
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Legal Research
: Slaw.caJones Day Linking Lawsuit
By Steven Matthews
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).
Paxil Lawsuit
Paxil Claims, Lawsuits, and Injuries
Copyright Lawsuits: Critical Issues Before Filing Copyright
Federa Rule 11(b) Considerations
Vioxx Lawsuits
Vioxx personal injury suits are a seroius concern for Merck and patietns
Construction Site Accidents
Lawsuits related to accidents
Bextra Injury Risks
Bextra Increases Risk of Fatal Heart Attack
Bausch Lomb Renu Moistureloc Linked to Eye Infection Fusarium Keratiti
Contact Lens Solution Product Recall
Couple Awarded Nearly One Million Dollars in Lawsuit
Condo Lawsuit Gets $1 Million Award
abercrombie and fitch lawsuit
Abercrombie and Fitch Employment Discrimination Lawsuit
Further Settlements Reached in Kitec Lawsuit
Kitec Pumbing Further settlements reached in Defective Products Lawsuit
Robert Fresh Markets Win $21.6 Million Insurance Lawsuit
Robert Fresh Groceries Wins $21.6 Million Katrina Insurance Lawsuit
AT&T International Roaming Charges, AT&T lawsuit
AT&T Faces International Roaming Charges Lawsuit
US Settles Indian Lawsuit for $3.4 Billion
US Government Settles Indian Lawsuit for $3.4 Billion

A Law Firm That Sounds Like Dones Jay
Jones Day lawsuit against Blockshopper contradictory argument
Jones Day's 'Gross Abuse of Trademark Law'
Jones Day Opposes Trademark Amicus Brief -- What Is It Afraid Of








