IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—D. Utah: Owner of ‘MYADVICE’ mark not entitled to preliminary injunction over alleged infringing use, (May 14, 2026)

By Mandavi Singh, LL.M.

The court found no likelihood of confusion between the parties’ use of MYADVICE branding citing differences in their services, target consumers, and overall market context.

The owner of the MYADVICE mark failed to obtain a preliminary injunction against an insurance company’s use of the “MyAdvice” name for its service platform because it did not show a likelihood of consumer confusion, particularly given the parties’ distinct services, sophisticated consumers, and differing market contexts. The federal district court in Utah held that the plaintiff did not demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, a prerequisite for injunctive relief, and therefore denied the motion (Advice Media, LLC v. Mag Mutual Insurance Co., No. 2:25-cv-01107-AMA-JCB (D. Utah May 11, 2026)).

Background. Advice Media, LLC is a technology and marketing company that provides AI-driven digital marketing services, including website development, search optimization, and online advertising solutions. Mag Mutual Insurance Company is a long-established provider of medical professional liability insurance offering coverage, risk management advice, and related services.

Advice Media owns U.S. Trademark Registration No. 7,039,611 for the “MYADVICE” mark, which it has used since 2022 in connection with marketing services and online educational content in the digital marketing field. The mark appears prominently on its website and is central to its branding and client engagement strategy.

The dispute arose after Mag Mutual launched a platform branded “MyAdvice” as part of a broader suite of services for policyholders. Advice Media filed suit asserting trademark infringement, unfair competition, and related claims, and sought a preliminary injunction to stop use of the mark. It argued that the defendant’s use created confusion, particularly because both parties provide advisory services and market to healthcare professionals.

Similarity of the marks. The court found that while the marks were similar in wording, differences in presentation reduced the likelihood of confusion. Advice Media used a stylized lowercase presentation alongside a distinctive logo. In contrast, Mag Mutual used capitalized text with separate branding elements and consistently displayed its house mark prominently. The court emphasized that similarity must be assessed in a marketplace context rather than in isolation and concluded that this factor weighed against confusion.

Lack of intent to copy. The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the defendant intended to trade on its goodwill. There was no evidence that Mag Mutual was aware of Advice Media’s mark before receiving a cease-and-desist notice, and the parties operated in different industries with no meaningful overlap in reputation. Citing Sally Beauty Co. v. Beautyco, Inc., 304 F.3d 964 (10th Cir. 2002), the court reiterated that intent requires evidence of an attempt to derive benefit from another’s goodwill, which was absent here.

No meaningful evidence of actual confusion. The court found no evidence of actual confusion in the record. Although the absence of such evidence was not dispositive given the short period of concurrent use, the court held that this factor was neutral and did not support the plaintiff’s claim.

Dissimilar services and markets. The court placed significant weight on the differences between the parties’ services. Advice Media offers digital marketing and business management tools, while Mag Mutual’s “MyAdvice” platform provides malpractice risk management guidance as part of insurance coverage. Even though both involved “advice” in the general sense, the subject matter, delivery, and commercial purpose differed substantially.

The court also noted that the defendant’s services were not available to the public but only to existing policyholders as part of bundled insurance offerings. Consumers seeking marketing services were unlikely to believe that an insurance provider offered such services, and vice versa. This factor weighed strongly against the likelihood of confusion.

Sophisticated consumers. Further, the court emphasized the high degree of care exercised by consumers. Medical malpractice insurance policies can have high costs, and purchasers typically conduct careful evaluations before selecting a provider. Similarly, businesses investing in digital marketing services would make informed decisions rather than impulse purchases. Citing M Welles & Assocs., Inc. v. Edwell, Inc., 59 F.4th 723 (10th Cir. 2023), the court held that such sophistication reduced the likelihood of confusion.

Weakness of the mark. Although the court classified the MYADVICE mark as suggestive, it found the mark relatively weak in the relevant context. Advice Media failed to show strong commercial recognition within the insurance industry, and the term “MyAdvice” broadly described advisory services. As a result, the mark’s strength did not support a finding of likely confusion.

No likelihood of success. Weighing all factors together, the court concluded that Advice Media failed to demonstrate a likelihood of confusion—the central element of its claim. Because the plaintiff could not establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, it was not entitled to the presumption of irreparable harm under the Lanham Act.

The court therefore denied the motion for a preliminary injunction without addressing the remaining factors, reiterating that such relief is an extraordinary remedy requiring a clear showing of entitlement.

The Case is No. 2:25-cv-01107-AMA-JCB.

Judge: Allen, A.

Attorneys: Trevor A. Bradford (Intellectual Strategies) for Advice Media. Carrie Ann Hanlon (The Sladkus Law GRP) for Mag Mutual Insurance Co.

Companies: Advice Media; Mag Mutual Insurance Co.

Cases: Trademark UtahNews TechnologyInternet