Forever 21, Inc. v. Ultimate Offprice, Inc.
Filing
47
ORDER DENYING FOREVER 21 MOTION FOR CONTEMPT 40 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II (lc)
O
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
FOREVER 21, INC.,
12
13
v.
Case No. 2:10-cv-05485-ODW(JCGx)
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
CONTEMPT [40]
ULTIMATE OFFPRICE, INC.,
14
Defendant.
15
I.
16
INTRODUCTION
17
This contempt action arises from the Court’s October 11, 2011 Final Judgment
18
and Permanent Injunction. (ECF No. 35.) Forever 21 now moves to hold Ultimate
19
Offprice in contempt of the Permanent Injunction for its sale of garments bearing
20
ablated Forever 21 marks.1
21
II.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
22
Plaintiff Forever 21 is a retailer of fashion apparel and accessories. (Mot. 4.)
23
Forever 21’s clothing is identified by an extensive portfolio of trademarks. (Kwon
24
Decl. Ex. A–H.) Defendant Ultimate is in the business of buying and selling closeout
25
garments—items that are left over, returned, or cancelled—in the secondary
26
market. (Opp’n 2.)
27
1
28
Having carefully considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the instant Motion,
the Court deems the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L. R.
7-15.
On July 23, 2010, Forever 21 sued Ultimate for infringement of its
1
2
intellectual-property rights.2
3
unauthorized distribution and sale of garments bearing the following Forever 21
4
trademarks:
The infringement action arose from Ultimate’s
5
6
7
8
9
(ECF No. 35.) Ultimate orders large quantities of garments sight-unseen and can only
10
determine the existence of attached trademarks upon delivery. (Opp’n 2.) After
11
Forever 21 brought suit, Ultimate instituted procedures to eliminate any remaining
12
trademark indicia from the clothing it sells. (Sfadia Decl. ¶ 8.) Ultimate obtained a
13
copy of a Forever 21 instruction sheet explaining procedures to eliminate trademarks
14
from apparel that would be sold in the secondary market. (Id. Ex. 3.) Ultimate’s
15
employees were instructed to take out hang tags and labels or, if not feasible, to punch
16
holes
17
(Opp’n 3; Sfadia Decl. ¶ 5.)
in
the
labels
of
the
clothing
bearing
retailer
trademarks.
18
On October 7, 2011, the parties stipulated to entry of the Final Judgment, which
19
included a permanent injunction, as a part of a confidential settlement of the suit.
20
(ECF No. 35.) The Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction were entered by the
21
Court on October 11, 2011, enjoining Ultimate from the following:
22
(a) copying, manufacturing, exporting, marketing, displaying,
23
selling offering for sale, reproducing, brokering, consigning,
24
shipping, licensing, developing, delivering or distributing any
25
product or services that uses, or otherwise makes use of,
26
2
27
28
Forever 21 sued Ultimate for infringement of Forever 21’s federally registered trademarks under 15
U.S.C. § 1114(1), for dilution of federally registered and common law trademarks under 15 U.S.C. §
1125(c) and California Business and Professions Code section 14247, for unfair competition under
15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and for declaratory relief.
2
1
Plaintiff’s Forever 21 Trademarks, and/or any intellectual
2
property that is confusingly or substantially similar to, or that
3
constitutes a colorable imitation of Plaintiff’s Forever 21
4
Trademarks in connection with internet use, website, domain
5
name,
6
commercial exploitation, television, web-based or any other
7
program, or any product or service otherwise;
metatags,
advertising,
promotions,
solicitations,
8
(b) performing or allowing others employed by or representing it,
9
or under its control, to perform any act which is likely to injure
Plaintiff’s rights in the Forever21 Trademarks; and
10
11
(c) engaging in any acts of federal and/or state trademark
12
infringement, false designation, unfair competition, and
13
dilution, which would damage or injure Plaintiff’s rights in its
14
Forever21 Trademarks.
15
(ECF No. 35 (emphasis added).)
16
Approximately one year later, Forever 21 began investigating a third party to
17
this litigation, National Stores, Inc., for trademark infringement. (Mot. 3–4.) On
18
October 19, 2012, Forever 21’s investigator purchased what appeared to be Forever 21
19
garments from two of National’s retail outlets. (Heaney Decl. ¶ 2, ¶ 5, ¶ 6, Ex. A, D,
20
E; Vener Decl. ¶ 6.) Forever 21 then sued National for infringement. (Mot. 7.)
21
During discovery, National provided Forever 21 with the invoices for the
22
garments purchased by Forever 21’s investigator. (Mot. 7.) Some of these invoices
23
had been issued to National by Ultimate. (Vener Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. F.) Examination of
24
the invoice dated September 7, 2012, reveals that five of the allegedly infringing
25
garments originated with Ultimate.3 (Compare Vener Decl. ¶ 8–9, Ex. F, G with
26
Heaney Decl. ¶ 4 Ex. C, and Kwon Decl. ¶ 12, Ex. J.)
27
3
28
The September 7, 2012 invoice issued by Ultimate to National includes five garments that display
product descriptions and style numbers that match the product descriptions and style numbers of the
garments obtained by Forever 21’s investigator: (1) SURPLCE PLTD METALLIC Style No. 46559;
3
1
The garments Ultimate sold to National bore labels with manually manipulated
2
or mutilated marks. (Mot. 4.) Figure A below contrasts marks visible on the label of
3
the garments Forever 21’s investigator purchased from National with Forever 21’s
4
authorized marks. (Id. at 8–9.)
5
ULTIMATE OFFPRICE
6
FOREVER 21
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Figure A
17
18
On August 5, 2013, Forever 21 brought a motion to hold Ultimate in contempt
19
of court for violating the Permanent Injunction. (ECF No. 35.) Forever 21 alleges
20
that Ultimate’s distribution and sale of garments with mutilated or manipulated marks
21
improperly “makes use of” Forever 21’s trademarks in violation of the Permanent
22
Injunction. (Mot. 3–4.)
III.
23
LEGAL STANDARD
24
District courts have the inherent power to enforce their orders through civil
25
contempt. Spallone v. United States, 493 U.S. 265, 276 (1990); Cal. Dep’t. of Soc.
26
///
27
28
(2) SHLDR W/BOW Style No. 4884; (3) CRT TIE NCK SOLID Style No. 44313; (4) SKATER
LACE OVERLAY Style No. 48862; and (5) FOIL METALLIC BODYCON Style No. 6419.
4
1
Servs. v. Leavitt, 523 F.3d 1025, 1033 (9th Cir. 2008). A party to the original action
2
may invoke the Court’s power by initiating a proceeding for civil contempt. Gompers
3
v. Buck’s Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 444–45 (1911).
4
To establish liability, the party alleging contempt must demonstrate by clear
5
and convincing evidence that the alleged contemnor violated a specific and definite
6
order of the Court by failing to “take all reasonable steps within the party’s power to
7
comply.” In re Dual-Deck Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust Litig., 10 F.3d 693, 695
8
(9th Cir. 1993).
9
demonstrate why they were unable to comply. FTC v. Affordable Media, LLC, 179
10
Upon such a showing, the burden shifts to the contemnor to
F.3d 1228, 1239 (9th Cir. 1999).
11
Contempt need not be willful—intent is irrelevant to a finding of civil
12
contempt. Stone v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 856–57 (9th Cir.
13
1992). But a party should not be found in contempt if the violation is based on a
14
good-faith and reasonable interpretation of the Court’s order. Dual-Deck, 10 F.3d at
15
695. Additionally, a party’s substantial compliance with a court order is a defense to
16
civil contempt and “is not vitiated by a few technical violations where every
17
reasonable effort has been made to comply.” Id.
18
In the context of trademark-infringement actions, a party who has once
19
infringed is allowed less leniency for purposes of injunction enforcement than an
20
innocent party. Wolfard Glassblowing Co. v. Vanbragt, 118 F.3d 1320, 1322 (9th Cir.
21
1997). A prior infringer must keep a fair distance from the “margin line.” Id. This
22
requirement exists to protect the plaintiff from the scenario where the enjoined
23
infringer makes an insignificant change and begins a new trademark contest in the
24
context of a contempt hearing. Id. at 1323. But the infringer is not required to stay so
25
far away from the margin line that it is put out of business. Id.
26
District courts have wide latitude in determining whether there has been a
27
contemptuous violation of its order and broad equitable power to order appropriate
28
relief. FTC v. EDebitPay, LLC, 695 F.3d 938, 945 (9th Cir. 2012); Stone, 968 F.2d at
5
1
856. Appropriate sanctions may be imposed to coerce the contemnor into compliance
2
with the court’s order, to compensate the complainant for losses sustained as a result
3
of the contemptuous behavior, or both. United States v. United Mine Workers, 330
4
U.S. 258, 303–04 (1947); United States. v. Bright, 596 F.3d 683, 696–97 (9th Cir.
5
2010).
6
IV.
DISCUSSION
7
To establish that Ultimate is in contempt, Forever 21 must prove by clear and
8
convincing evidence that Ultimate violated the definite terms of the Permanent
9
Injunction by failing to take all reasonable steps within its power to comply with the
10
injunction. Forever 21 must additionally show that any violation was not based on a
11
good-faith and reasonable interpretation of the injunction. For the reasons discussed
12
below, the Court finds that Forever 21 failed to prove that Ultimate’s distribution and
13
sale of garments containing manually ablated Forever 21 marks is a sufficient
14
violation to hold Ultimate in contempt of the Permanent Injunction.
15
Forever 21 contends that Ultimate has violated the terms of the Permanent
16
Injunction by its distribution and sale of garments containing manually excised
17
Forever 21 marks. (Mot. 7–8.) As an initial matter, the injunction does not on its face
18
prohibit Ultimate from buying and selling garments containing mutilated Forever 21
19
marks. (ECF. No. 35.) The pertinent portion of the injunction prohibits Ultimate’s
20
distribution or sale of “any product or services that uses, or otherwise makes use of,
21
Plaintiff’s Forever 21 Trademarks.” (Id. (emphasis added).) Accordingly, to establish
22
that Ultimate is in contempt, Forever 21 must prove that Ultimate’s sale of garments
23
with ablated labels makes use of Forever 21’s marks.
24
Forever 21 contends that Ultimate’s sale of garments containing effaced
25
Forever 21 marks makes use of the protected trademarks because enough of the mark
26
remains for consumers to recognize that the marks belong to Forever 21. (Mot. 4, 9.)
27
Forever 21 asserts this alone is sufficient evidence to find a willful violation of the
28
Court’s injunction. The Court finds this argument to be threadbare.
6
The Permanent Injunction required Ultimate to take all reasonable steps to
1
2
comply with its terms.
To this end, Ultimate obtained a copy of a Forever 21
3
instruction sheet4 detailing procedures to eliminate trademarks from garments.
4
Ultimate instructed its employees to take out hang tags and remove or ablate labels
5
bearing Forever 21 trademarks. (Opp’n 3; Sfadia Decl. ¶ 5, ¶ 8, Ex. 3.) Figure B
6
depicts an example of a manipulated label.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Figure B
14
15
16
The Court views Ultimate’s actions not as trivial modifications designed to skirt
17
the line of the injunction, but rather as a reasonable attempt to comply with the
18
Court’s order. The permanent injunction plainly prohibits Ultimate from making use
19
of Forever 21’s marks. (ECF No. 35.) So, Ultimate instructed its employees to ablate
20
any Forever 21 marks remaining in the garments. It was reasonable for Ultimate to
21
believe that the sale of garments with punched-out Forever 21 marks would not be
22
“making use” of Forever 21’s marks. Ultimate could not make use of Forever 21’s
23
marks
24
///
if
the
garments
no
longer
contained
the
protected
marks.
25
26
27
28
4
Though the source and vintage of this Form NPI-2 instruction sheet is unclear, it nevertheless
instructs Ultimate’s efforts to comply with the Court’s Permanent Injunction. The instruction sheet
illustrates how Forever 21 required its trademarks to be eliminated from garments destined for the
secondary market. Additionally, Forever 21 does not dispute the authenticity of the form. (ECF No.
46.)
7
1
It is difficult to guess what superior measures Ultimate could have instituted to
2
comply with the injunction’s prohibition of use of Forever 21’s marks. Because
3
Ultimate orders large quantities of garments sight-unseen, it can only determine the
4
existence of trademarks upon delivery. (Opp’n 2.) Thus, Ultimate’s only option to
5
comply with the injunction is to manipulate the visible marks upon receipt.
6
Ultimate could remove the marks by interlineation, bleaching, excising or
7
punching out the label’s protected mark, or full label removal. Interlineation risks
8
leaving much of the mark visible and fading with continued use of the garment.
9
Bleaching also may leave much of the mark visible and carries the additional risk of
10
ruining surrounding portions of the garment. Full label removal is often not an option,
11
as the Forever 21 instruction sheet reflects, because removal of stitched-in tags can
12
compromise the integrity of the garment. Excising or punching out the protected
13
Forever 21 mark, while leaving the remainder of the label intact, strikes a reasonable
14
balance of removing the identifying characteristics of the mark while maintaining the
15
integrity of the garment. Indeed, the Forever 21 instruction sheet encourages excising
16
the mark portion of the label. (Sfadia Decl. ¶ 8; Reinis Decl. Ex. 3.)
17
Notably, nowhere in its motion does Forever 21 offer any additional or
18
alternative steps Ultimate could have taken to comply with the injunction short of a
19
complete cessation of sale of any garments that once bore a Forever 21 mark. Even a
20
prior infringer is not required to stay so far away from the margin line that it is put out
21
of business. Wolfard Glassblowing, 118 F.3d at 1322.
22
Forever 21 argues that Ultimate’s mark-removal procedures do not measure up
23
because some garment labels retain enough of the protected mark for consumers to
24
recognize that the marks belong to Forever 21.
25
photographs5 that show labels retaining hanging chads or traces of the ‘F’ or the ‘1’
Forever 21 points to a few
26
27
28
55
The September 7, 2012 invoice reflects that many of the garments pictured in the declaration of
Young Kwon were not garments that Ultimate sold to National. (Kwon Decl. Ex. J at 37–45,
61–63.) Similarly, Ultimate did not sell any of the clothing depicted in Exhibit E to Brian Heaney’s
8
1
contained in the Forever 21 mark. (Mot. 8–9.) Two examples are depicted in Figure
2
C below:
3
4
5
6
7
8
Figure C
9
In both of these photos it is clear that Ultimate attempted to punch out the
10
trademark indicia, but the chads had simply not fallen out. The Court views these
11
labels as relatively minor technical violations that are insufficient to vitiate Ultimate’s
12
substantial compliance with the injunction.
13
manipulating the garment labels to remove the protected marks demonstrates that it
14
has taken all reasonable steps within its power to avoid making use of Forever 21’s
15
trademarks in compliance with the injunction.
16
///
17
///
18
///
19
///
20
///
21
///
22
///
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
///
Ultimate’s conduct in manually
27
28
declaration. Although Forever 21 does not explicitly represent to the Court that Ultimate sold these
items, their inclusion in exhibits repeatedly referenced in this motion is confusing and misleading.
9
V.
1
CONCLUSION
2
Forever 21 has not established by clear and convincing evidence that Ultimate
3
failed to substantially comply with a reasonable interpretation of the Final Order and
4
Permanent Injunction. Therefore, Forever 21’s Motion to hold Ultimate in contempt
5
is DENIED.
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
9
September 3, 2013
10
11
12
13
____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?