## Facts

- Ford maintained internal, nonpublic business and technical materials (e.g., vehicle plans, engineering data, pricing/profitability information, and manufacturing blueprints) treated as confidential and as trade secrets.
- Robert Lane operated an independent website devoted to Ford-related news and commentary; the site later used the domain “blueovalnews.com.”
- After Ford restricted Lane’s access to Ford press-release content and objected to Ford-related domain use, Lane threatened to post “sensitive” materials and to seek confidential information from Ford employees.
- Lane met with Ford and agreed to seek approval before using further Ford documents, but later published internal materials, including engine-design and fuel-economy strategy documents and an engineering blueprint.
- When Ford threatened suit, Lane posted additional internal documents, including materials claimed to be competitively sensitive.
- Ford alleged Lane knew or had reason to know the documents were confidential and that employees supplying them were breaching confidentiality obligations.
- Ford also objected to Lane’s use of Ford’s trademarks and logo on the website on the theory it could suggest sponsorship or endorsement.

## Issues

1. Whether a preliminary injunction prohibiting Lane from using, copying, or disclosing Ford’s internal documents and alleged trade secrets would be an unconstitutional prior restraint under the First Amendment.
2. Whether Ford was entitled to a preliminary injunction barring Lane’s use of Ford’s trademarks and logo on the website.

## Decision

- The court denied Ford’s motion for a preliminary injunction to the extent it sought to restrain Lane from using, copying, or disclosing Ford’s internal documents and alleged trade secrets.
- The court held that the requested publication ban would operate as a prior restraint and was not justified by Ford’s private commercial interests, even assuming Ford showed substantial evidence of trade secret misappropriation.
- The court declined to grant additional preliminary injunctive relief against Lane’s use of Ford’s trademarks and logo because Lane had voluntarily ceased the challenged uses and Ford did not show imminent irreparable harm warranting extraordinary relief.

## Legal Principles

- A preliminary injunction requires weighing: (1) likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable harm, (3) harm to others, and (4) the public interest.
- An injunction that restrains publication before a final adjudication functions as a prior restraint and is presumptively unconstitutional.
- Prior restraints carry a heavy presumption against validity and are permissible only in exceptionally narrow circumstances; protection of private commercial interests generally does not justify a prior restraint.
- First Amendment protections apply to Internet publication in the same general manner as to traditional media for purposes of prior restraint analysis.
- Even where trade secret claims appear strong, constitutional limits may bar forward-looking restraints on publication, leaving post-publication remedies (including damages) as the primary means of relief.
- Voluntary cessation of challenged trademark use can undercut a showing of imminent irreparable harm necessary for preliminary injunctive relief.

## Conclusion

The court refused to enjoin an independent website operator from publishing Ford’s internal materials because the requested order would be an unconstitutional prior restraint, and it declined further trademark-related preliminary relief where the challenged uses had stopped and irreparable harm was not shown.


Ford Motor Co. v. Lane, 67 F. Supp. 2d 745 (E.D. Mich. 1999)