. AHN IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION JONES DAY, ) a General Partnership, ) ) Plaintif, ) Case No, 08 CV 4572 ) vw ) Judge John W, Darrah ) BLOCKSHOPPER LLC, db/e ) Blockshopper.com, a Missouri Limited ) Liability Corporation; BRIAN TIMPONE; ) and EDWARD WEINHAUS, ) ) Defendants. j ) MEMORANDU! AND ORDER This matter is before the Court upon Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Docket Nos. 40, 43.) Also pending is the Motion of Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Citizen, Public Knowledge, and Ci n Media Law Project for Leave to File Brief as Amici Curiae Supporting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Trademark Claims (Docket No. 39.) For the reasons stated below, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is granted as to the claims alleged against individual defendants ‘Timpone and Weinhaus and is otherwise denied. The Motion for Leave to File Brief as Amici Curiae is denied, BACKGROUND ‘This case concems Defendants’ use of Plaintiff's name and website information in their business of reporting on residential real estate transactions in Chicagoneighborhoods. The following facts are alleged in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (“Complaint”), Defendant Blockshopper LLC (“Blockshopper”) is a Missouri limited liability corporation, having its place of business in Chicago. Defendants Timpone and Weinhaus are members of Blackshopper and co-founded, registered and own the intemet ‘website located at the domain www.blackshopper.com, Blockshopper is in the business of gathering and publishing details of private teal estate transactions. Jones Day is a large, international general partnership law firm with an office in Chicago, among other cities. Jones Day is the owner of two United States Service Mark Registrations, Numbers 2,316,539 and 2,212,877, for the mark JONES DAY in connection with “Legal Services.” Asa result of the high quality of legal services it has provided to its clients and its reputation as one of the premier law firms in the United States and world, Jones Day’s name and service marks have become very valuable assets and are famous. (Complt., 415.) Jones Day has spent millions of dollars marketing its services using the Jones Day Marks; and as “a direct result of the time and effort promoting the Jones Day Marks, Jones Day’s clients, its competitors and the general public have come to associate high quality legal services provided by Jones Day by its use of the name and service mark JONES DAY in both word and stylized form.” (Complt., ¢ 16.) On at least two occasions, Defendants have used the Jones Day Service Marks on the blockshopper.com website and have linked articles on the website to the Jones Day website, Exhibit D of the Complaint pertains to reports appearing on blockshopper.com of facts of residential real estate transactions made by two Jones Day associate lawyers,Dan Malone and Jacob Tiedt. The report states the facts of real estate transactions of the Jones Day associates, displays their pictures, and states thatthe associates work for Jones Day. In addition, the report includes links to information about these associates appearing within Jones Day’s website. Jones Day contends Defendants? use of the Jones Day Marks, the links to the Jones Day website, and the use of proprietary information from the Jones Day website ‘ereate the false impression that Jones Day is affiliated with and/or approves, sponsors or endorses Defendants’ business, which it does not. Arising from these facts, Jones Day alleges five claims for relief against Blockshopper and Timpone and Weinhaus: service mark infringement pursuant to 1SUS.C. § 1114 and 1125(a) (Count 1); federal false designation of origin pursuant 10 15 US.C. § 1125(a) (Count TD} federal service mare dilution pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1125(¢) (Count II) unfair business practices under the Ifinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Count IV); and infringement and unfair competition under Iinois common law (Count V). LEGAL STANDARD Dismissal is warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(6)(6) if the factual allegations of the complaint, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, do not plausibly entitle the plaintiff to relief. Bell Atlantic Corp v. Twombly, US 127. Ct. 1955, 1968-69 (2007) (Bell Atlantic). In considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) all well-pleeded factual allegations are accepted as true and all reasonable inferences are construed in favor of the plaintiff. Sprint Spectrum L.P. v. City