U.S. District Judge Ann Marie McIff Allen issued the memorandum decision and order on May 11, 2026, finding that the two companies operate in separate industries and that the high cost of the insurance policies involved ensures a high degree of consumer care.
Advice Media, which does business as MyAdvice, owns a federal trademark registration for the mark covering digital marketing, website development, and search optimization services. The company argued that MAG Mutual’s introduction of a platform with the same name in October 2026 created a likelihood of confusion.
MAG Mutual, a provider of medical professional liability insurance, uses “MyAdvice” as part of a three-pronged infrastructure for its policyholders that includes “MyProtection” for coverage and “MyDefense” for claims management. The insurer’s platform provides pre-existing education and advisory services to help providers reduce malpractice exposure.
The court found that while the marks are similar in sight and sound, they differ significantly in design and context. Advice Media’s mark appears in lowercase letters beside a distinctive logo, while MAG Mutual’s appears in all caps. MAG Mutual also prominently displays its “MAGMUTUAL” registered trademark in close proximity to “MyAdvice,” clearly identifying the source of the services.
“Given these differences, while the marks are closely similar, they are not confusingly similar, and this factor weighs against a likelihood of confusion,” the judge wrote.
The court also noted that Advice Media failed to prove MAG Mutual intended to copy its reputation. The two companies are not competitors; Advice Media serves businesses in various industries with marketing solutions, while MAG Mutual serves healthcare providers with insurance. There was no evidence MAG Mutual was aware of Advice Media prior to receiving a cease-and-desist notice on December 10, 2025.
Evidence of actual confusion was absent, though the court acknowledged the services had only been available contemporaneously for a few months. However, the court emphasized the stark differences of the services and the manner of marketing.
Advice Media’s services are marketed directly to prospective purchasers through its website and industry conferences. In contrast, MAG Mutual’s “MyAdvice” services are not sold as standalone products. Access requires purchasing a medical malpractice insurance policy, which can cost $15 million or more.
“The high degree of care likely to be exercised by purchasers weighs against a likelihood of confusion,” the judge wrote, noting that consumers seeking such coverage consult multiple providers and carefully compare offerings.
Regarding the strength of the mark, the court described Advice Media’s “MYADVICE” mark as suggestive. While the mark suggests advisement, it does not clearly indicate the specific nature of the digital marketing services. The court found the mark relatively weak of the insurance industry, where Advice Media had not established recognition.
The judge also classified the requested injunction as mandatory, which carries a heightened burden for the plaintiff. The injunction would require MAG Mutual to rebrand its infrastructure or develop a new program, placing the court in a position of ongoing supervision.
Advice Media had filed the motion for preliminary injunction on February 11, 2026, after sending a cease-and-desist notice two months prior. MAG Mutual continued using the mark on its website and social media during the litigation.
The court declined to impose sanctions for Advice Media’s overlength motion, calling the violation “de minimis and unintentional,” but admonished the plaintiff to comply with local rules.
Because the court found Advice Media failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, it did not address the remaining factors for a preliminary injunction, including irreparable harm.
The case continues in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah.