The court in Crown Pontiac addressed whether a preliminary injunction may properly issue against a consumer who incorporates a company’s trade name into a website domain name, where such website is used by the consumer to publicize his grievances with the company. Defendant Thomas Ballock, car buyer, was disappointed with a sunroof installed by plaintiff dealership, Crown Pontiac, doing business as Crown Pontiac Nissan (“Crown”). After an unsuccessful attempt by Ballock to revoke purchase of the vehicle, arbitration proceedings were initiated to resolve his dispute with Crown according to the terms of the parties’ contract for sale. Ballock, finding arbitration little more to his liking than the botched sunroof, obtained the domain name “www.crownpontiacnissan.com,” and began adding content critical of Crown’s business practices and arbitration generally.
In response, Crown filed suit against Ballock and moved for a preliminary injunction restraining Ballock from “acquiring, utilizing or operating any website using the trade name Crown Pontiac-Nissan or any confusing variation thereof, in text or domain name(s) intended to, or having the effect of, diverting traffic from Crown Pontiac, Inc.’s web sites, including without limitation any site found at the URL http://www.crownpontiacnissan.com.”
The district court granted Crown’s motion but later reversed course and dissolved the injunction upon subsequent motion by Ballock – who, although initially appearing pro se, had by time of the latter motion acquired what the Court characterized as “highly competent representation”. Ballock then filed a motion seeking damages against Crown for wrongful issuance of the preliminary injunction.
The district court again sided with Ballock and granted the motion. Because Ballock’s website included “clear efforts” to disclaim affiliation with Crown and no evidence existed that Ballock was motivated by profit or that Crown suffered damages as a result of his website, the injunction against Ballock’s operation of the website “never should have been issued.”
Moreover, because the wrongfully issued injunction caused harm to Ballock, the district court found that Ballock was entitled to $6,766.45 in damages. The court dismissed the case according to a settlement agreement between the parties awarding Ballock the same amount (under the agreement, Ballock received $766.45 in attorneys’ fees, $4,000.00 for mental anguish and $2,000.00 for deprivation of First Amendment rights).
Crown Pontiac v. Ballock, No. 02-C-1001-S (N.D.Ala. Sept. 23, 2003)