## Facts

- Duluth News-Tribune (publisher of the *Duluth News-Tribune*) circulated its daily newspaper in northeastern Minnesota, including the Iron Range, for over a century.
- Mesabi Publishing Company published the *Mesabi Daily News* in Virginia, Minnesota, since 1946; Hibbing Tribune Company published a Hibbing paper (later the *Daily Tribune*) since 1899.
- Mesabi and Hibbing, related companies, jointly began publishing and distributing a Saturday newspaper throughout the Iron Range titled *Saturday Daily News Tribune*.
- After Duluth News-Tribune complained about similarity, defendants changed the title to *Saturday Daily News & Tribune* by adding an ampersand, but plaintiff remained dissatisfied.
- Plaintiff claimed it frequently used “News-Tribune” (without “Duluth”) as shorthand and alleged defendants’ Saturday title misappropriated that mark.
- Plaintiff sued in federal court alleging false designation of origin under Lanham Act § 43(a) and dilution under Minnesota’s anti-dilution statute; the district court denied a preliminary injunction and later granted summary judgment for defendants.
- Plaintiff appealed; the court of appeals reviewed summary judgment de novo, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.

## Issues

1. Whether defendants’ use of *Saturday Daily News & Tribune* created a likelihood of confusion with plaintiff’s *Duluth News-Tribune* (including asserted shorthand “News-Tribune”) under Lanham Act § 43(a).
2. Whether defendants’ title likely diluted the distinctive quality of plaintiff’s mark under Minn. Stat. § 325D.165.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment for defendants on all claims.
- The court held no reasonable jury could find a likelihood of confusion under the Lanham Act on the record presented.
- The court held the Minnesota dilution claim failed because plaintiff’s asserted mark, particularly “News-Tribune,” was not sufficiently distinctive.

## Legal Principles

- Likelihood of confusion under Lanham Act § 43(a) is assessed through a multi-factor inquiry, including strength of the mark, similarity of the marks in overall commercial impression, competitive proximity, defendant’s intent, and evidence of actual confusion.
- Descriptive marks receive limited protection; common industry words used descriptively (such as “news” and “tribune” for newspapers) are weak and narrow in scope.
- The protectability and strength of a composite mark may differ from a truncated component; a plaintiff may not obtain broad exclusivity over common terms by asserting shorthand usage.
- Similarity turns on overall commercial impression, not isolated shared words; differences in presentation and context may defeat confusion even when marks share descriptive components.
- Minimal evidence of actual confusion, absent other supporting factors, may be insufficient to create a triable issue on likelihood of confusion at summary judgment.
- Minnesota’s anti-dilution statute requires a distinctive mark; marks built from commonly used industry terms generally do not meet the distinctiveness threshold needed to show likely dilution.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed judgment for defendants because the plaintiff’s newspaper title was descriptive and weak—especially the asserted shorthand “News-Tribune”—and the record showed insufficient similarity, intent, and actual-confusion evidence to support Lanham Act liability, while the state dilution claim failed for lack of a sufficiently distinctive mark.


Duluth News-Tribune v. Mesabi Publ'g Co., 84 F.3d 1093 (8th Cir. 1996)