In Darba Enterprises Inc. v. Amica Mutual Insurance Co. et al., District of Nevada Judge Hicks dismissed the plaintiffs’ antitrust claim arguing that the defendant’s trademark enforcement suit against the plaintiff constituted anticompetitive activity. Amica had sued alleging that Darba violated its trademark by using it in websites that inaccurately suggested that Darba could provide Amica policy quotes. The court held that Amica’s trademark suit was protected from antitrust attack by the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine because the plaintiff failed to present any evidence to suggest that the suit was a sham.