IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

BLUEMILE, INC., 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

YOURCOLO, LLC, 

 Defendant. 

Case No. 2:11-cv-497 

JUDGE SARGUS 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAVERS 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

 This matter is presently before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff’s Application for a 

Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 3). For the reasons set forth herein, the motion is 

GRANTED. 

I. Background 

 The following facts are set forth for the limited purpose of addressing the immediate 

motion before the Court. Any findings of fact and conclusions of law made by a district court in 

addressing a request for a temporary restraining order or injunctive relief are not binding at a trial 

on the merits. See United States v. Edward Rose & Sons, 384 F.3d 258, 261 (6th Cir. 2004) 

(citing Univ. of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981)). 

 According to the complaint, Plaintiff Bluemile, Inc. is an Ohio corporation in the 

business of selling internet technology services. Plaintiff operates its business over two internet 

domain names, www.bluemilenetworks.com and www.bluemilecloud.com. “Bluemile” is a 

registered trademark and service mark of Plaintiff and has been used continuously by Plaintiff 

since 2004. Defendant Yourcolo, LLC is an Ohio limited liability company operating in the 

same business as Plaintiff as a direct competitor. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant owns a website 

with the domain name http://www.bluemile.net and is responsible for the content of that website. 

Case: 2:11-cv-00497-EAS-EPD Doc #: 8 Filed: 06/10/11 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2

According to Plaintiff, that content contains false and disparaging statements of fact about 

Plaintiff’s products and services. Plaintiff alleges that these statements were made with 

knowledge of their falsity or with a reckless disregard for the truth with the intention of injuring 

Plaintiff’s business and benefiting Defendant as a direct competitor of Plaintiff. 

 The complaint includes claims made pursuant to provisions of the Lanham Act and the 

Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”) codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1125. The 

complaint also includes claims for defamation and tortious interference with business relations. 

Plaintiff has moved for the issuance of a temporary restraining order, and notice has been 

provided to Defendant of Plaintiff’s motion. 

II. Discussion 

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained the inquiry involved in addressing 

either a motion for a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction: 

When ruling on a motion for [injunctive relief], a district court must consider and 

balance four factors: (1) whether the movant has a strong likelihood of success on 

the merits; (2) whether the movant would suffer irreparable injury without the 

injunction; (3) whether issuance of the injunction would cause substantial harm to 

others; and (4) whether the public interest would be served by issuance of the 

injunction. 

Chabad of S. Ohio & Congregation Lubavitch v. City of Cincinnati, 363 F.3d 427, 432 (6th Cir. 

2004) (quoting Blue Cross & Blue Shield Mut. of Ohio v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp., 110 

F.3d 318, 322 (6th Cir. 1997) (internal quotations and citations omitted)). See also Edward Rose 

& Sons, 384 F.3d at 261 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting Washington v. Reno, 35 F.3d 1093, 1099 (6th 

Cir.1994)). The Sixth Circuit has further explained that a district court should not consider the 

foregoing factors as prerequisites to be met; rather, these factors are to be balanced in a weighing 

of the equities involved. Edward Rose & Sons, 384 F.3d at 261. 

Case: 2:11-cv-00497-EAS-EPD Doc #: 8 Filed: 06/10/11 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
3

 Upon review of the complaint and the attachments, the Court concludes that a balancing 

of the factors described above supports the issuance of a temporary restraining order in this case. 

Plaintiff has demonstrated ownership of a valuable trademark and has alleged that Defendant, a 

competitor of Plaintiff, controls a website with a domain name identical to the trademark. 

According to Plaintiff, Defendant uses the website to misdirect traffic through malicious use of 

Plaintiff’s registered trademark and post false and misleading information about Plaintiff’s 

products to Defendant’s benefit and Plaintiff’s detriment. Thus, in the Court’s view, Plaintiff is 

likely to succeed on the merits of some or all of its claims. Additionally, irreparable harm and 

injury to Plaintiff is likely as long as the offending materials are accessible via the internet, 

issuance of the temporary restraining order is not likely to cause substantial harm to Defendants 

or others before this matter can be resolved on the merits, and the public interest is served by the 

removal of false and misleading information from the internet. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 

65, a temporary restraining order is appropriate in this case and is issued as described below. 

III. Order 

Based on the foregoing, Defendant Yourcolo, LLC, its employees, agents, attorneys, 

principals, owners, directors, officers, and any other person in active concert or participation are 

enjoined, prior to the expiration of this Order, from: 

 1) Publishing, uttering or otherwise using, in any way, shape or form, whatsoever, the 

trademark and service mark Bluemile; 

 2) Publishing, posting to or using, in any way, shape or form, whatsoever , the domain 

name http://www.bluemile.net; 

 3) Publishing or otherwise disseminating defamatory statements or information about or 

referencing, directly or indirectly, Bluemile; and 

Case: 2:11-cv-00497-EAS-EPD Doc #: 8 Filed: 06/10/11 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
4

 4) Interfering, directly or indirectly, with Plaintiff’s relationship with and service to its 

customers, including without limitation the publication or other dissemination of false or 

defamatory statements about Plaintiff or the products and services provided by Plaintiff. 

 This Order is issued on June 10, 2011. It shall remain in effect for fourteen (14) days 

following its issuance upon posting of the bond. As security pursuant to Rule 65(c), Plaintiff is 

directed to deposit with the Clerk of the Court a bond in the amount of $1,000.00. 

 A hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is set for June 27, 2011 at 10 

a.m. An order setting a briefing and discovery schedule will subsequently be issued by the 

Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 June 10, 2011 /s/Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. 

DATED EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR. 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case: 2:11-cv-00497-EAS-EPD Doc #: 8 Filed: 06/10/11 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>