Northland Insurance Companies v. Blaylock [1]

In February 2000, Northland Insurance Companies (Northland) sued Patrick Blaylock in federal court in Minnesota, claiming trademark infringement, trademark dilutions, and violations of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA). The case revolved around Blaylock's registration and operation of gripe sites at www.northlandinsurance.com [2] and www.sailinglegacy.com [3]. Blaylock, a former client of Northland, created the websites after a dispute arose about insurance coverage for a yacht. On the sites, Blaylock commented upon and criticized Northland and its business practices.

Northland's lawsuit focused on the use of its trademark in the domain name of the website at www.northlandinsurance.com [2]. Northland filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, asking the court to order Blaylock to shut down the site. Blaylock filed a motion to dismiss. In September 2000, the district court denied both motions. In its ruling, the court held that Northland had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its trademark claims, nor had it shown that it would suffer irreparable harm without an injunction.

Specifically, the court found that Northland had not shown a sufficient likelihood of confusion to justify issuing an injunction, and it refused to apply the doctrine of "initial interest confusion" to Blaylock's conduct because he was not a competitor of Northland and he did not stand to gain financially from consumers' initial confusion about the domain name. The court also found that Northland was unlikely to succeed on its dilution claim because Blaylock used the site for noncommercial commentary. Finally, the court determined that Blaylock 's registration of the domain name was not motivated by a "bad faith intent to profit," as required for a successful claim under the ACPA. The court gave weight to the fact that Blaylock used the website for noncommercial commentary, had not registered multiple variants of Northland's name or previously registered other trademarks as domain names, and had not offered to sell the domain to anyone.

In early 2001, the parties submitted a joint stipulation dismissing the case with prejudice, indicating that they probably settled.