Farrell v. Schoemaker

Filing 3

SUPPLEMENT regarding Complaint 1 by Attorney J. Scott Paul on behalf of Plaintiff Keyen Farrell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Paul, J.)

Me

Gl\TH
NOI\TH
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
J. SCOTT PAUL

E-mail spaulqlmcgrathnorth.com

May 21, 2009

Via Email &

U.S.

Mail

Patrick S. Cooper Fraser Stryker PC LLO

'I
'" c " ''"

~

EXHIBIT

~

500 Energy Plaza
409 S. 17th Street
Omaha, NE 68102

G'

"

13

~

PCOOPER(iF raserStrvker.com
Re: Shoemoney Media Group, Inc. v. Farrell; http://searchengineland.com/google-clears-employee-in-shoemoney-case-19481

Dear Pat:
I presume you are aware of your client's ongoing efforts to keep the internet updated regularly about the events of this case. Nevertheless, I wanted to make sure that he shared with you the comment that recently Google released to the blog From Search Engine Land Here is

the post from that website that contains Google's comment: .

"The privacy and security of our users and advertisers' account information is a top priority for us, and our internal policies prohibit any use of non-public advertiser data for personal gain. After a thorough investigation, we found no indication that any employee purposefully tampered with or circumvented any of those policies, processes or procedures, including our trademark filtering process. Due to an unrelated human error, however, some ads with the

"Shoemoney" trademark in the text were unintentionally allowed to run. The error
has since been corrected, and the ads ran only for a short time."
The author of the website comment also stated:

"Talking with the company a bit further, it stressed that the human error was on the part of another AdWords employee, not Keyen Farrell, who is the defendant in the case Jeremy "ShoeMoney" Schoemaker has filed involving the use of his trademarks in AdWords copy."

I believe this is Google's comment and is consistent with what I have been tellng you.

After the filng of this lawsuit, your client has admitted in a statement made on his website that he lacked knowledge about how the display of his unauthorized trademark
McGrath North Mulln & Kratz, PC ii

First National Tower, Suite 3700 1601 Dodge Street Omaha, NE 68102 www.mcgrathnorth.com

Patrick Cooper May 21, 2009
Page 2

occurred, yet that did not stop him from making the unfounded assumption that Google's procedures were "bypassed" by Keyen Farrell, stating: "It is not yet known how Mr. Farrell bypassed Google policy preventing advertisers from displaying trademarked terms in the text of their ads, nor is it known whether this was an isolated act of infringement or part of a larger pattern of infringing conduct."

or common law duties to Shoemoney, much

Google's response should assure you that neither Keyen or John Farrell breached any statutory less caused any damage to your client.

Equally troubling, however, is your client's use of defamatory remarks when referring to the Farrells and in particular Keyen FarrelL. For example, another website: searchengineland.com, quoted your client as referring to Keyen Farrell as a "corrupt

employee"::
"Talking with Schoemaker, he stressed that he assumes Google itself had no knowledge of Farrells actions, nor is he filng suit against Google itself.
Our goal in this is not for financial gain but to defend our trademark that we have spent many years building trust with. People (commenting on) the TechCrunch story talk like Google is going to write me a big check, but that is just silly. This is not going to be a cash flow positive thing for us I am pretty sure. And I do not honestly think nor do we have any evidence that Google was involved or had knowledge of this corrupt employee."

Keyen Farrell has been subjected to public scorn and ridicule as a result of your client's public
comments. Bloggers such as The Next Corner

have stated:

"Keyen Farrell needs a new reputation
April 8, 2009 Wow, how can you destroy your early career in no time. Just ask Keyen Farrell, a

young, just started Google employee on the Adwordsdepartment. The bio story
is about Keyen Farrell & his website or company or himself buying ads with a trademarked term in it. If you look at the top 10 in Google on his name, 6 of the 10 are about this story."

Additionally on the website John Chow dot com, John Chow commented on your client's lawsuit

stating:
"If Mr. Farrell does indeed work for Google, I have a feeling he won't be working there much longer. That wil be the least of his worries once Shoe gets done with him."

The statement from Google should now clarify what occurred. Accordingly we call on you to immediately dismiss your client's lawsuit against the Farrells. To avoid further damage to the Farrell's reputation, we also demand that your client acknowledge that the trademark terms
McGrath North Mulln & Kratz PC LLO
First National Tower, Suite 3700 1601 Dodge Stret Omaha, NE 68102

www.mcerthnorth.com

Patrick Cooper
May 21,2009
Page 3

were displayed through no fault of Keyen or John Farrell and we ask that your client publicly apologize to them on his website for the slanderous comments he has made over the internet and in the press and disseminate this apology using the same mailing lists and media channels that he previously used to publicize his complaint against Keyen FarrelL.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

J. Scott Paul

JSP/tao

McGrath North Mullin & Kratz, PC IlO
First National Tower, Suite 3700 1601 Dodge Street Omaha, NE 68102

www.mcgrthnorth.com