RENO AIR RACING ASSOCIATION, INC. V McCORD
452 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2006)
NATURE OF THE CASE: McCord (D) appealed an award of damages and a permanent injunction
due to his infringement of two trademarks belonging to Reno Air Racing Association, Inc.
(P), in violation of the Lanham Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq. ('Lanham Act'). The
district court found P in civil contempt and imposed sanctions based on his violation of an
ex parte temporary restraining order ('TRO') issued the same day the complaint was filed.
FACTS: P is the registered owner of two federal trademarks, numbers 1,322,146 and
1,371,797, for its 'pylon logo;' the marks are identical, although one is a trademark and
the other a service mark. The marks have been registered since 1985 and have acquired
incontestable status. Through special licensing agreements, P permits vendors inside the
gates of the show to sell merchandise bearing the trademarks. D sold merchandise, including
t-shirts, caps and mugs, depicting the term 'Reno Air Races' and artwork containing images
of at least one airplane and a pylon, from booths located just outside of the gates of the
air races. D received a letter and telephone call from P's attorney, who objected to
McCord's sale of merchandise at the air races. P filed a complaint for infringement. P also
filed an ex parte application for a TRO pursuant to Rule 65(b) and a motion for a
preliminary injunction. The district court granted the application after a telephonic
hearing, and issued an ex parte TRO that prohibited D from engaging in any types of
transactions, destruction, or transfers related to the goods. D was served and packed up his
goods but had great difficulty finding an attorney in Reno that did not have a conflict with
P. P eventually filed a motion for contempt and claimed that D violated the TRO. The court
found D in violation and awarded P $6,727 in damages arising from the sale of infringing
merchandise and permanently enjoined D from 'making, manufacturing, [or] distributing... any
goods, packaging or any other items which bear the Marks, or any confusingly similar
variations thereof.' It then found D in civil contempt for continuing to sell infringing
merchandise after being served with the TRO on September 13, 2002. The district court
imposed contempt sanctions in an amount equal to P's reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in
connection with the TRO and contempt motion. This appeal resulted.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment