Newmark Realty Capital, Inc. v. BGC Partners, Inc. et al

Filing 401

ORDER DENYING IN PART 145 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANTS ARE NOT IN CIVIL CONTEMPT OF COURT'S PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER; AND ORDER REGARDING 207 , 222 PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO SUBMIT NEW EVIDENCE. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 5/29/2018. (blflc4S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/29/2018)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

NEWMARK REALTY CAPITAL, INC.,
Plaintiff,

8

12

ORDER DENYING IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORDER
TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANTS
ARE NOT IN CIVIL CONTEMPT OF
COURT’S PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION ORDER; AND ORDER
REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
TO SUBMIT NEW EVIDENCE

13

[Re: ECF 145, 207, 222]

v.

9
10

BGC PARTNERS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 16-cv-01702-BLF

14
15

Plaintiff Newmark Realty Capital, Inc. filed a Motion for Order to Show Cause Why

16

Defendants Are Not in Civil Contempt of the Court’s Preliminary Injunction Order (“Motion for

17

Contempt”). Mot., ECF 145. Plaintiff claims that Defendants BGC Partners, Inc. and Newmark

18

& Co. Real Estate, Inc. are in contempt for violating the Court’s November 16, 2017 preliminary

19

injunction order. Having considered the parties’ briefing and oral argument, the Court hereby

20

DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s Motion for Contempt. The Court, however, orders Defendants to

21

correct technical violations of the preliminary injunction order. The Court will also allow

22

Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s newly submitted evidence which they did not have an

23

opportunity to respond.

24
25

I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff and Defendants are companies that offer services in the commercial real estate

26

market. Over the years these companies have both expanded geographically and Defendants have

27

expanded substantially into the mortgage services sector occupied by Plaintiff. On April 4, 2016,

28

Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants, alleging trademark infringement. Compl., ECF 1.

1
2
3
4
5

On November 16, 2017, the Court issued a preliminary injunction order that enjoined
Defendants from using:
NEWMARK alone or in combination with any other words as a
trademark to denote the source of the following services—mortgage
banking, mortgage brokerage, loan servicing, investment brokerage
and investment consulting in the field of commercial real estate.

6

November 16, 2017 Order, ECF 134. That order went into effect on November 17, 2017 upon

7

Plaintiff’s posting of a bond. ECF 137. On November 30, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant motion

8

claiming that Defendants had failed to comply with the preliminary injunction order. Mot. The

9

following day, on December 1, 2017, Defendants filed a Motion for Stay and Motion for

10

Reconsideration of the Preliminary Injunction. ECF 148, 151.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

The Court held a hearing on Defendants’ Motion for Stay and Plaintiff’s Motion for

12

Contempt on December 14, 2017. Defendants’ Motion for Stay was denied. ECF 173. The Court,

13

however, recognized that the terms “investment brokerage” and “investment consulting” may be

14

too vague to be enforceable. Id. Thus, the Court suspended the injunction as to “investment

15

brokerage” and “investment consulting” services pending further consideration of the parties’

16

efforts to jointly propose clear definitions of these terms. Id. As for Plaintiff’s Motion for

17

Contempt, the Court heard oral argument but set another hearing on January 4, 2018 due to the

18

limited time for argument. The Court also allowed the parties to file supplemental briefing by

19

January 2, 2018. During the January 4, 2018 hearing, the Court provided some guidance as to the

20

boundaries of the preliminary injunction order in relation to Defendants’ website. See January 4,

21

2018 Hearing Tr., ECF 183. The Court also asked the parties to meet and confer to facilitate

22

Defendants’ compliance based on the Court’s guidance. Defendants agreed to provide a

23

declaration regarding the status on correcting their sales brochures.

24

Thereafter, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ Motion for

25

Reconsideration of the Preliminary Injunction. March 30, 2018 Order, ECF 262. Determining that

26

the November 16, 2017 Order contained several errors, the Court narrowed the preliminary

27

injunction. Id. at 42–43. Accordingly, Defendants are currently enjoined from using:

28

NEWMARK alone or in combination with any other words, but not
2

NEWMARK KNIGHT FRANK alone or in combination with other
words, as a trademark to denote the source of the following
services—mortgage banking, mortgage brokerage, loan servicing,
and investment services which are subordinate to or derivative of
mortgage services provided by mortgage brokers—in the field of
commercial real estate.

1
2
3
4

Id. at 43.

5

Prior to the Court’s ruling on Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration of the Preliminary

6

Injunction, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Modify the Preliminary Injunction and requested the Court

7

to expand the November 16, 2017 injunction. ECF 202. Considering the narrowed injunction

8

issued on March 30, 2018, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Modify the Preliminary

9

Injunction. ECF 284. As such, the currently effective injunction is set forth in the Court’s March

10

30, 2018 Order.
Both parties have appealed the Court’s preliminary injunction order to the Ninth Circuit.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

ECF 319, 323. This Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the preliminary injunction while the

13

appeal proceeds. See Ashker v. Sayre, No. 05-03759 CW, 2010 WL 1980233, at *3 (N.D. Cal.

14

May 17, 2010).

15

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

16

A.

17

Civil contempt “consists of a party’s disobedience to a specific and definite court order by

Civil Contempt

18

failure to take all reasonable steps within the party’s power to comply.” Reno Air Racing Ass'n.,

19

Inc. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1130 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted); see also Gen. Signal Corp.

20

v. Donallco, Inc., 787 F.2d 1376, 1379 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Civil contempt occurs when a party fails

21

to comply with a court order.”). “The standard for finding a party in civil contempt is well settled:

22

The moving party has the burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that the

23

[nonmoving party] violated a specific and definite order of the court.” FTC v. Affordable Media,

24

LLC, 179 F.3d 1228, 1239 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Stone v. City & County of San Francisco, 968

25

F.2d 850, 856 n. 9 (9th Cir. 1992)).

26

“The contempt need not be willful.” In re Dual-Deck Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust

27

Litig., 10 F.3d 693, 695 (9th Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Contempt

28

sanctions, however, are not warranted where the nonmoving party’s action “appears to be based on
3

1

a good faith and reasonable interpretation” of the court’s order. Id. (quoting Vertex Distrib., Inc. v.

2

Falcon Foam Plastics, Inc., 689 F.2d 885, 889 (9th Cir. 1982)). Substantial compliance also is a

3

defense to civil contempt—“[i]f a violating party has taken ‘all reasonable steps’ to comply with

4

the court order, technical or inadvertent violations of the order will not support a finding of civil

5

contempt.” Gen. Signal Corp. v. Donallco, Inc., 787 F.2d 1376, 1379 (9th Cir. 1986) (citation

6

omitted).
Accordingly, the party alleging civil contempt must demonstrate by clear and convincing

7
8

evidence that (1) the nonmoving party violated a court order, (2) the noncompliance was more

9

than technical or de minimis, and (3) the nonmoving party’s conduct was not based on a good
faith and reasonable interpretation of the violated order. Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

No. 08-CV-05780-LHK, 2017 WL 3394754, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2017) (citing United States v.

12

Bright, 596 F.3d 683, 694 (9th Cir. 2010)).

13

B.

14

The Court may generally consider matters properly subject to judicial notice. See Tellabs,

Request for Judicial Notice

15

Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007). In support of its motion, Plaintiff

16

filed a Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”) of “Newmark Group, Inc.’s November 21, 2017

17

Amendment No. 1 to Form S-1 Registration Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange

18

Commission.” RJN, ECF 146.
Plaintiff’s RJN is GRANTED, as the document is a matter of public record and Defendants

19
20

do not dispute the document’s authenticity. Fed. R. Evid. 201; Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa

21

USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (9th Cir. 2006). While the document is accepted as what it

22

represents, any specific fact findings and legal conclusions set forth in the document may not bind

23

this Court.

24

III.

25
26

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
i.

Defendants’ Objections to Plaintiff’s Supplemental Brief and Accompanying
Declarations

Defendants object to and request the Court to strike Plaintiff’s Supplemental Brief (“Pl.’s

27
Supplemental Brief, ECF 177), Second Supplemental Yip Declaration (ECF 177-1), and Dao
28
4

1

Declaration (ECF 177-5). ECF 179. Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s Supplemental Brief is

2

“overlong due to the use of copious, lengthy footnotes.” Id. at 1–2. Defendants also argue that the

3

Second Supplemental Yip Declaration inappropriately recites prior factual allegations in an

4

attempt to flout page limits and contains evidence that “adds nothing to the contempt motion . . .

5

but to which Defendants yet again ha[d] no opportunity to reply.” Id. at 2. The Court does not

6

find the content and length of Plaintiff’s Supplemental Brief and the Second Supplemental Yip

7

Declaration to be improper. The Court therefore OVERRULES Defendants’ objections and

8

DENIES the request to strike Plaintiff’s Supplemental Brief and the Second Supplemental Yip

9

Declaration.

10

As for the Dao Declaration, Defendants assert that it contains hearsay. ECF 179 at 2. This

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

declaration states that Tom Dao, an employee of Plaintiff, received an “email from a contact” that

12

references a financing deal facilitated by “NKF Capital Markets.” Dao Decl., ECF 177-5; see also

13

Exs. 1 and 2 to Dao Decl., ECF 177-6, -7. The Court does not find that the Dao Declaration

14

contains hearsay because Plaintiff offers the declaration for the proposition that confusion has

15

“surfaced regarding NKF CAPITAL MARKETS” (Pl.’s Supplemental Brief 3) rather than for the

16

truth of the matter asserted. The Court therefore OVERRULES Defendants’ objections and

17

DENIES the request to strike the Dao Declaration.

18
19

ii.

Plaintiff’s Objections to the Supplemental Declaration of Alison Lewis

Plaintiff filed nine objections to the Supplemental Lewis Declaration (ECF 187-1) which

20

was submitted as a status report regarding Defendants’ sales brochures. ECF 188. Defendants

21

filed a reply to Plaintiff’s objections. ECF 194.

22

First, Plaintiff objects to Ms. Lewis’ statement that “[a]s someone who has worked in

23

commercial real estate since 1999, I agree with Plaintiff’s principal, Mr. Mitsanas, who testified

24

that sales and financing services have been offered side-by-side for decades” as lacking foundation

25

and mischaracterizing Mr. Mitsanas’ testimony. ECF 188 at 1. This objection is OVERRULED

26

because Ms. Lewis is making a statement based on her personal understanding of Mr. Mitsanas’

27

statement rather than arguing the precise nature of his position.

28

Second, Plaintiff objects to Ms. Lewis’ statement that “I cannot imagine that customers
5

1

would be confused about the use of the word ‘Newmark’ on sales brochures that pre-date the

2

Court’s order, since those brochures are fundamentally about selling property, something that

3

Plaintiff does not do” as lacking foundation and speculative. Id. This objection is OVERRULED

4

because Ms. Lewis is describing her belief based on her personal observations of the brochures

5

and understanding of Plaintiff’s business. To the extent that Ms. Lewis’ “belief” is not relevant

6

the Court will give this evidence the weight it deserves.
Plaintiff’s third to eighth objections pertain to Ms. Lewis’ statements regarding Defendants’

7
8

production and distribution of sales brochures. See ECF 188 at 2–5. For example, Ms. Lewis

9

explains that Defendants “rarely if ever use Microsoft Office” and instead “use[s] a more
sophisticated design tool known as Adobe Creative Suite.” Supplemental Lewis Decl. ¶ 9.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Plaintiff objects to those statements as lacking foundation or irrelevant. The Court finds that the

12

objected statements are relevant and do not lack foundation because Ms. Lewis, as Chief

13

Administrative Officer for Newmark Knight Frank, has worked with her marketing staff on

14

editing Defendants’ sales brochures (see Supplemental Lewis Declaration ¶¶ 1–2). Plaintiff’s

15

third to eighth objections are therefore OVERRULED.
In addition, Plaintiff objects to Ms. Lewis’ statement that “[Defendants’] brokers would

16
17

much rather talk to . . . clients about how we can help them sell properties” as speculative, lacking

18

foundation, and irrelevant. ECF 188 at 4–5; Supplemental Lewis Decl. ¶ 17. However, as

19

provided in Ms. Lewis’s Declaration in support of Defendants’ opposition to the Motion for

20

Contempt, she has had interactions with Defendants’ brokers while executing Defendants’

21

compliance plan. See generally Lewis Decl. in Supp. of Defs.’ Opp’n, ECF 164-2. Thus, the

22

Court does not find that Ms. Lewis’ statement to be speculative or lacking foundation. Her

23

statement is relevant because it is probative of Defendants’ compliance with the injunction order.

24

Supplemental Lewis Decl. ¶ 17. This objection is therefore OVERRULED.

25

IV.

26
27
28

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO SUBMIT NEW EVIDENCE
A.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Submit New Evidence at ECF 207
On February 13, 2018, Plaintiff submitted a request to submit new evidence for (1)

Plaintiff’s Motion for Contempt and (2) Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ motion for
6

1

reconsideration.1 ECF 207. Defendants oppose the request. ECF 216.
Regarding the Motion for Contempt, Plaintiff seeks to submit new evidence of Defendants’

3

(1) January 4, 2018 PTO declarations (ECF 203-1, -2, -3), (2) January 26, 2018 promotional email

4

(ECF 202-4), (3) the email, voicemail greeting, marketing materials of Michael Grausz

5

(Defendants’ debt and equity financing professional) (ECF 202-7), (4) screenshots of their

6

websites (ECF 203-3) and recent press releases (ECF 202-8, -9), (5) recent public earnings

7

presentation and financial reports (Exs. 1 and 2 to Yip Decl., ECF 207-2, -3; ECF 202-8), (6)

8

website video of Defendants’ IPO (ECF 202-9), (7) an email dated December 15, 2017 and

9

received by Jeff Wilcox, Plaintiff’s principal (ECF 205), (8) a January 7, 2018 email from David

10

Woodward, the CEO of CompassRock Real Estate (ECF 185-1), and (9) a January 27, 2018 text

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

2

message from a potential client to George Mitsanas, Plaintiff’s principal (ECF 199-8). ECF 207.

12

The aforementioned evidence was not available at the time when Plaintiff filed its reply in support

13

of the Motion for Contempt on December 11, 2017. Thus, Plaintiff could not have submitted the

14

evidence before briefing closed. The Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiff’s request to submit the

15

new evidence identified above for its Motion for Contempt.

16

B.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Submit New Evidence at ECF 222
On February 20, 2018, Plaintiff filed a second request to submit new evidence for (1)

17
18

Plaintiff’s Motion for Contempt, (2) Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ motion for

19

reconsideration, (3) Plaintiff’s motion to modify the preliminary injunction. ECF 222. Defendants

20

oppose the request. ECF 228.
Plaintiff seeks to submit declarations and accompanying exhibits at ECF 222-1 to 222-6

21
22

for all three motions.2 Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to submit new evidence of (1) a $18,201 check

23

that was mistakenly sent to Plaintiff instead to Defendants (ECF 222-4), (2) Defendants’

24

advertisement in “The Registry” (ECF 222-2), (3) Michael Heagerty’s declaration recounting a

25
26
27
28

1

The Court has previously ruled on Plaintiff’s request as to its opposition to Defendants’ motion
for reconsideration. March 30, 2018 Order 9–10.
2
The Court has previously ruled on Plaintiff’s request as to its opposition to Defendants’ motion
for reconsideration and motion to modify the preliminary injunction. March 30, 2018 Order 10–
11; ECF 284 at 5–6.
7

1

February 14, 2018 conversation during a MBA meeting (ECF 222-3), (4) the declaration of

2

Andrew Mekjavich, a vice president who joined Plaintiff in February 2018, regarding his

3

experience of confusion (ECF 222-5), and (5) Defendants’ use of the NEWMARK logo during a

4

cocktail reception at the Commercial Real Estate Finance/Multifamily Housing Convention &

5

Expo (ECF 222-6). ECF 222.
Regarding the Motion for Contempt, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request to submit

6
7

evidence filed at ECF 222-1 to 222-6 described above. Unlike Defendants’ contention (ECF 228),

8

the Court does not find that Plaintiff’s request is untimely because the newly submitted evidence

9

was not available when the briefing for Motion for Contempt was closed on December 11, 2017.

10

V.

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff asserts that Defendants are in contempt of the Court’s preliminary injunction

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

order. As set forth in the Court’s March 30, 2018 Order, Defendants are currently enjoined from

13

using:

14

17

NEWMARK alone or in combination with any other words, but not
NEWMARK KNIGHT FRANK alone or in combination with other
words, as a trademark to denote the source of the following
services—mortgage banking, mortgage brokerage, loan servicing,
and investment services which are subordinate to or derivative of
mortgage services provided by mortgage brokers—in the field of
commercial real estate.

18

March 30, 2018 Order 43. The Court addresses Plaintiff’s arguments by categorizing the evidence

19

which Plaintiff relies on to contend that Defendants are violating the preliminary injunction.

15
16

20
21

A.

Defendants’ Amended S-1 Form and IPO
Defendants filed an Amended S-1 Form Registration Statement with the Securities and

22

Exchange Commission (“SEC”) in advance of Newmark Group, Inc.’s IPO. Ex. 1 to RJN

23

(“Amended S-1 Form”), ECF 146-1. The Amended S-1 Form refers to Newmark Group, Inc. as

24

“Newmark” and states that “Newmark is a rapidly growing, high margin, full-service commercial

25

real estate services business that offers a full suite of services and products . . . [that] include

26

capital markets, which consists of investment sales, debt and structured finance.” Id. at iii, 111.

27

Plaintiff argues that the Amended S-1 Form shows that Defendants will continue to use

28

trademarks containing NEWMARK to offer mortgage services because the S-1 Form refers to the
8

1

offering of “debt and equity financing” and a “full-service” commercial real estate platform. Mot.

2

3. In Plaintiff’s view, the use of Newmark in the Amended S-1 Form is “actionable” because that

3

form “was aimed to attract public attention of investors and others.” Reply 4, ECF 166. In this

4

regard, Plaintiff asserts that the use of the Amended S-1 Form to raise money for Defendants’ IPO

5

by promoting mortgage services is a violation of the injunction. Mot. 6–7; Reply 5. In addition,

6

Plaintiff claims that Newmark Group, Inc. is being used as a trademark. Reply at 5.

7

Defendants counter that the Amended S-1 Form is a mandatory SEC filing related to the

8

offering of securities to the investing public as opposed to selling mortgage services. Opp’n 3,

9

ECF 164. According to Defendants, the Amended S-1 Form describes Newmark Group, Inc. as a
public holding company and that it was formed for the purpose of spinning off Defendant BGC

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Partners, Inc.’s real estate business. Id. at 3–4. Defendants also argue that the name of the

12

corporate parent (Newmark Group, Inc.) is not used as a trademark to denote the source of

13

mortgage services. Id.

14

The Court finds that the Amended S-1 Form does not violate the preliminary injunction

15

order. As Defendants point out, the Amended S-1 Form was filed with the SEC to promote the

16

offering of “securities” to public investors as opposed to selling mortgage services. For the same

17

reason, Defendants’ IPO, which is a sale of “securities,” does not violate the injunction order.

18

Moreover, Plaintiff has not provided clear and convincing evidence that Newmark Group, Inc. is

19

being used as a trademark. Affordable Media, 179 F.3d at 1239 (holding that the moving party

20

must show a violation by clear and convincing evidence). As set forth in the Amended S-1Form,

21

“Newmark Group, Inc.” is used as the name of the corporate public holding company that has no

22

direct operations. Amended S-1 Form 12. In fact, Defendants’ various subsidiaries provide the

23

actual commercial real estate services. See id. at 9, 12, 14, F-14. Therefore, the Court concludes

24

that Plaintiff has failed to show that Defendants are in contempt of the injunction order based on

25

the Amended S-1 Form and Newmark Group, Inc.’s IPO.

26

B.

27

Plaintiff argues that Defendants use NEWMARK trademarks to “cross-sell mortgage

28

Cross-selling Mortgage Services

business to Berkeley Point, which is owned by or affiliated with [D]efendants” in violation of the
9

1

preliminary injunction. Mot. 4. As evidence, Plaintiff points to the Amended S-1 Form’s

2

statement that “Newmark’s fast growing commercial mortgage business is an opportunity for

3

strong loan originations and cross-selling opportunities” and that the “combination of Berkeley

4

Point and ARA . . . will provide substantial cross-selling opportunities.” Id. (citing Amended S-1

5

Form 4, 9) (emphasis in original).

6

In response, Defendants contend that the preliminary injunction order does not prohibit

7

referrals to their mortgage businesses, including Berkeley Point. Opp’n 5. Defendants argue that

8

under Plaintiff’s interpretation of the injunction their sales brokers would have to send referrals

9

“only to Defendants’ competitors” but not their affiliates or colleagues and that this result is

10

“preposterous on its face.” Id.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Plaintiff further argues that the “Lanham Act is designed to prevent likelihood of any type

12

of confusion, including as to the ‘affiliation, connection, or association of such person [infringing

13

the trademark] with another person.’” Pl.’s Supplemental Br. 1 (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1))

14

(emphasis and alterations in original), ECF 177. On this basis, Plaintiff claims that “injunctions

15

that enjoin violations of the Lanham Act must by definition prohibit conduct that causes

16

affiliation, connection, or association confusion.” Id. Under Plaintiff’s view, it appears that

17

Defendants would not be able to even disclose that their sales and leasing providers and mortgage

18

service businesses are affiliates. See Mot. 7. On the other hand, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s

19

interpretation of the injunction based on “affiliational confusion” “was never part of [the

20

preliminary injunction motion] briefing, has no record support, and is inapplicable to this current

21

case.” Defs.’ Supplemental Br. 1, ECF 178.

22

The Court is unpersuaded by Plaintiff’s argument that the preliminary injunction order

23

prohibits Defendants from cross-selling mortgage services to their affiliate businesses or

24

disclosing any such affiliations. Plaintiff contends that the injunction must prevent affiliational

25

confusion because § 1125(a)(1) of the Lanham Act provides so. However, while Plaintiff pled

26

violation of § 1125 (forbidding false designation of origin) in its complaint, it never asserted

27

violation of § 1125(a)(1) in the motion for preliminary injunction. See Mot. for Prelim. Inj., ECF

28

41. As such, Plaintiff did not address what referrals Defendants could make from their protected
10

1

NEWMARK services to their own, but differently named, mortgage service businesses such as

2

Berkeley Point. The Court thus made no findings related to cross-selling mortgage services to

3

Defendants’ affiliates. Without making such findings, it was never the intention of the Court to

4

require Defendants to forego business opportunities from existing customers by being precluded

5

from referring business to their own affiliates. Nor did Plaintiff request such an injunction. In fact,

6

during the hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction, Plaintiff argued that “if [Defendants]

7

want to keep competing under Berkeley Point, that is, this is America and that’s terrific.”

8

September 7, 2017 Hearing Tr. 21:24–22:1, ECF 110. The result that Defendants’ sales and

9

leasing brokers would have to refer their clients to Plaintiff or other competitors rather their own
separately named mortgage businesses such as Berkeley Point was simply not contemplated by the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

parties and the Court. For these reasons, the preliminary injunction order does not prohibit

12

Defendants from cross-selling mortgage services to their affiliate mortgage service businesses.

13

C.

14

Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ Newmark Knight Frank website continues to offer

Newmark Knight Frank Website

15

mortgage services in violation of the injunction. Mot. 4. For example, Plaintiff submits that the

16

website provides that “Newmark Knight Frank’s Hotels practice provides . . . Equity and Debt

17

Financing.” Id. (citing Ex. 5 to Yip Decl., ECF 145-2) (emphasis in original). Plaintiff also

18

contends that the Newmark Knight Frank “Company Overview” webpage’s statement that “[w]e

19

provide a fully integrated platform of services” does not comply with the Court’s injunction order.

20

Id at 3 (emphasis in original). The Court acknowledges that Plaintiff made this argument under

21

the original preliminary injunction but the March 30, 2018 Order no longer enjoins Defendants

22

from using NEWMARK KNIGHT FRANK as a trademark to denote the source of mortgage

23

services. March 30, 2018 Order 43. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for contempt based on the

24

statements in the Newmark Knight Frank website no longer has merit.

25

D.

26

According to Plaintiff, Defendants “have continued to issue press releases and other

Press Releases and Other Materials Promoting Mortgage Services

27

promotional material that violate the injunction.” Mot. 5. As an example, Plaintiff points to a

28

November 21, 2017 press release that states that “Newmark Knight Frank (NKF) is pleased to
11

1

announce . . . . NKF’s full-service platform [that offers] . . . services including . . . debt placement,

2

valuation and advisory services; commercial mortgage brokerage services.” Ex. 12 to Yip Decl.,

3

ECF 145-2. According to Plaintiff, the same statement appears in nearly 1,000 press releases

4

going back to January 21, 2014. Mot. 6. Plaintiff also asserts that “[n]early 100 press releases

5

accessible on ARA A Newmark Company’s website, going back to June 22, 2015, also appear to

6

contain such statements.” Id. (emphasis added). Here, by referring to “such statements” regarding

7

Newmark Knight Frank’s services quoted above, Plaintiff takes issue that ARA A Newmark

8

Company’s website contains press releases that describe Newmark Knight Frank (or Newmark

9

Grubb Knight Frank) as offering debt placement and commercial mortgage brokerage services.
See Exs. 15–16 to Yip Decl., ECF 145-2; Yip Decl. ¶ 21, ECF 145-1 (pointing out that a number

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

of sampled ARA A Newmark Company’s press releases contain a “statement regarding Newmark

12

Knight Frank’s (or Newmark Grubb Knight Frank’s) ‘full-service platform [offering] a wide range

13

of services including . . . debt placement, valuation and advisory services; commercial mortgage

14

brokerage services’”).3 However, as previously discussed, the March 30, 2018 Order no longer

15

enjoins Defendants from using NEWMARK KNIGHT FRANK as a trademark to denote the

16

source of mortgage services. March 30, 2018 Order 43. Therefore, the Court finds no violation of

17

the preliminary injunction based on Defendants’ press release statements pointed out by Plaintiff.
Plaintiff also asserts that Defendants are violating the injunction because Newmark Knight

18
19

Frank’s homepage “links to a September 8, 2017 press release publicizing the firm’s affiliation

20

with Berkeley Point, saying ‘Berkeley Point will dramatically increase the scale and scope of

21

Newmark.’” Mot. 6 (citing Ex. 20 to Yip Decl., ECF 145-3). The press release’s statement

22

suggests that Defendants offer mortgage services under “Newmark” and thus violates the

23

preliminary injunction order. However, Plaintiff has pointed to only one press release that states

24

that “Berkeley Point will dramatically increase the scale and scope of Newmark” among numerous

25
3

26
27
28

Plaintiff does not raise the issue whether the press releases’ descriptions of ARA Newmark (as
opposed to Newmark Knight Frank) violate the injunction order. Thus, the Court does not
determine that issue. However, the use of “ARA Newmark” to denote the source of “mortgage
banking, mortgage brokerage, loan servicing, and investment services which are subordinate to or
derivative of mortgage services provided by mortgage brokers” violates the injunction and thus
any such description should be taken down.
12

press releases that Plaintiff has reviewed. Thus, at this juncture, the Court finds that this violation

2

is de minimis. See Facebook, 2017 WL 3394754, at *8 (requiring a showing that the

3

noncompliance was more than de minimis). Moreover, the publication date of this press release at

4

issue is September 8, 2017 before the November 16, 2017 Order took effect. Thus, there was no

5

violation when Defendants published this press release. As Plaintiff submitted the September 8,

6

2017 press release along with the instant motion about two weeks after the injunction order went

7

into effect, Defendants may not have had reasonable time to review their past press releases.

8

Under these circumstances, the Court does not find that the reference to “Newmark” in the

9

September 8, 2017 press release supports a finding of contempt. Nevertheless, Defendants shall

10

review their past press releases and modify or take down those articles that reference “Newmark”

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

in a manner that fails to comply with the March 30, 2018 Order.
Defendants’ Acquisition of Regency Capital Partners

12

E.

13

Defendants acquired a real estate finance firm called Regency Capital Partners in 2017.

14

Amended S-1 Form 113. Plaintiff argues that Defendants are violating the injunction by making

15

available the profiles of professionals from Regency Capital Partners at the Newmark Knight

16

Frank website. Mot. 7. The Court rejects this argument because the March 30, 2018 Order no

17

longer restricts Defendants’ use of NEWMARK KNIGHT FRANK in relation to mortgage

18

services.
Berkeley Point’s Brochures

19

F.

20

Plaintiff argues that Berkeley Point uses “Newmark” to denote the source of mortgage

21

services. Mot. 7. For support, Plaintiff points to Berkeley Point’s General Brochure and

22

homepage. For example, Berkeley Point’s General Brochure shows a diagram regarding its

23

“strong parent & affiliate relationships” that includes Newmark Grubb Knight Frank and ARA A

24

Newmark Company:

25

//

26

//

27

//

28

//
13

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Ex. 30 to Yip Decl., ECF 145-3. But while this diagram indicates that Berkeley Point is affiliated
with other subsidiaries of Cantor Fitzgerald, nowhere does the diagram show that Berkeley Point
is using NEWMARK as a trademark to denote the source of mortgage services.
Plaintiff also points to Berkeley Point’s homepage which contains hyperlinks titled “NKF
Capital” which connect to Newmark Knight Frank’s website. Exs. 31–32 to Yip Decl., ECF 145-3;
Yip Decl. ¶¶ 33–34. These links do not violate the injunction because Defendants are not enjoined
from using “NKF Capital” or “Newmark Knight Frank” to denote the source of mortgage services.
G.

Sales Brochures

Plaintiff asserts that Defendants’ website advertises at least a “dozen glossy sales

20

brochures” which display “a team of professionals, including those providing debt and equity

21

services, branded prominently with NEWMARK trademarks.” Reply 4 (citing Exs. 1–13 to

22
23

Mitsanas Decl. in Supp. of Reply, ECF 166-2).
The Court has reviewed the thirteen sales brochures submitted by Plaintiff. Ten of those

24

brochures display “Newmark Knight Frank” along with a list of debt and equity (or financing )

25

advisors. Plaintiff contends that “any client looking the last page of [the] brochure will think that

26

NEWMARK KNIGHT FRANK is the source of debt and equity financing services.” See

27

Mitsanas Decl. in Supp. of Reply ¶¶ 3–4, ECF 166-1. But the Court does not find those brochures

28
14

1

to be problematic because Defendants are not enjoined from using NEWMARK KNIGHT

2

FRANK to denote the source of mortgage services.

3

Three other advertising brochures display “ARA A Newmark Company” along with a list

4

of financing professionals. Exs. 4, 6, 11 to Mitsanas Decl. in Supp. of Reply. Plaintiff asserts that

5

“any client looking at the last page of [the] brochure will think that [D]efendants’ ARA A

6

Newmark Company is the source of financing (i.e., mortgage services).” Mitsanas Decl. in Supp.

7

of Reply ¶ 6. The Court finds that the “ARA A Newmark Company” brochures are in conflict

8

with the preliminary injunction order. However, the submitted brochures provide no indication

9

whether Defendants created and circulated those brochures after the November 16, 2017 Order
took effect. Defendants represent that those brochures existed before the injunction issued.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

January 4, 2018 Hearing Tr. 38:19–39:17. In fact, Defendants have instructed their mortgage

12

service brokers not to produce marketing materials that include the “Newmark” brand. Lewis

13

Decl. in Supp. of Defs.’ Opp’n ¶ 18. Thus, the Court finds that Defendants are in compliance with

14

the preliminary injunction to the extent that Defendants have designed their sales brochures to

15

omit “NEWMARK alone or in combination with any other words, but not NEWMARK KNIGHT

16

FRANK alone or in combination with other words, as a trademark to denote the source of the

17

following services—mortgage banking, mortgage brokerage, loan servicing, and investment

18

services which are subordinate to or derivative of mortgage services provided by mortgage

19

brokers—in the field of commercial real estate” as set forth in the March 30, 2018 Order. In other

20

words, the brochures do not constitute clear and convincing evidence that supports a showing that

21

Defendants have violated the injunction order by creating non-compliant brochures after the order

22

took effect. Affordable Media, 179 F.3d at 1239 (requiring clear and convincing evidence that

23

shows a violation of the court’s order).

24

The remaining issue is that the “ARA A Newmark Company” brochures are available at

25

Defendants’ website. Mitsanas Decl. in Supp. of Reply ¶ 3. Insofar as the brochures exist on

26

Defendants’ website, that availability does not comply with the preliminary injunction order.

27

However, at this juncture, such instances of non-compliance are technical violations that do not

28

support a finding of civil contempt. See Gen. Signal, 787 F.2d at 1379. As stated in Ms. Lewis’
15

1

declaration, since the injunction took effect on November 17, 2017, Defendants have formed a

2

compliance plan and instructed the affected brokers to not produce marketing materials that

3

include the “Newmark” brand or use “pre-existing marketing if those materials include the

4

Newmark brand.” Lewis Decl. in Supp. of Defs.’ Opp’n ¶ 18. There is no indication that

5

Defendants’ brokers have affirmatively used the ARA A Newmark Company brochures stored in

6

their website after the injunction took effect. On this basis, the Court does not find Defendants to

7

be in contempt.

8
9

Nevertheless, Defendants must further comply with the Court’s preliminary injunction
order. After the January 4, 2018 hearing, Defendants submitted Ms. Lewis’ supplemental
declaration that reports Defendants’ cost of editing and replacing the sales brochures. Ms. Lewis

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

reports that “there are currently 164 sales brochures online that are NEWMARK-branded in some

12

way and include contact information for our debt and equity professionals.” Supplemental Lewis

13

Decl. ¶ 14. About “one-quarter of these brochures will have to be altered by an outside vendor,

14

while the remainder can be handled in-house.” Id. For those brochures that could be handled in-

15

house, Ms. Lewis estimates that the editing would require 240 hours. Id. at 15. For those

16

brochures that could be handled using outside firms, she estimates that the cost would be about

17

$4,000. Id. These estimates, however, include sales brochures that use NEWMARK KNIGHT

18

FRANK which may be the majority of the sales brochures that were at issue when Ms. Lewis

19

submitted her supplemental declaration. Indeed, ten out of thirteen sales brochures submitted by

20

Plaintiff contain the NEWMARK KNIGHT FRANK branding. See Exs. 1–13 to Mitsanas Decl.

21

in Supp. of Reply. Because Defendants are no longer enjoined from using NEWMARK KNIGHT

22

FRANK, the Court expects that the number of brochures at issue would be substantially less and

23

thus revising those brochures does not appear to be overly burdensome.

24

Accordingly, the Court orders Defendants to modify sales brochures that use

25

“NEWMARK alone or in combination with any other words, but not NEWMARK KNIGHT

26

FRANK alone or in combination with other words, as a trademark to denote the source of the

27

following services—mortgage banking, mortgage brokerage, loan servicing, and investment

28

services which are subordinate to or derivative of mortgage services provided by mortgage
16

1

brokers—in the field of commercial real estate” to be in compliance with the injunction within

2

twenty-one (21) days of the date of this order. Defendants may seek an extension but they must

3

submit a declaration in support of their request.

4
5
6

H.

Other Evidence Submitted After Briefing was Closed
i.

Evidence Attached to Plaintiff’s Supplemental Brief

Plaintiff filed two articles containing photographs of Defendants’ IPO which show their

7

promotion of the new public company using “N Newmark.” Exs. 1–2 to Second Suppl. Yip Decl.,

8

ECF 177-2, -3. Defendants respond that the photographs are only showing the IPO of Newmark

9

Group, Inc., which used “Newmark” as shorthand for the securities filing. January 4 Hearing Tr.
28:23–29:4. Plaintiff also submitted Newmark Group, Inc.’s “Class A Common Stock”

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

prospectus filed with the SEC. Ex. 3 to Second Suppl. Yip Decl., ECF 177-4. The Court is

12

satisfied that the photographs depicting Defendants’ IPO and the “Class A Common Stock”

13

prospectus do not constitute clear and convincing evidence of a violation of the preliminary

14

injunction order. As discussed above, Defendants’ IPO offers “securities” to public investors as

15

opposed to selling mortgage services.

16

The Court notes that one of the articles contains a description of defendants’ new public

17

company: “Newmark is a full-service commercial real estate services business that offers a

18

complete suite of services and products . . . through brands including Newmark Knight Frank,

19

Newmark Cornish & Carey . . . .” Ex. 1 to Second Suppl. Yip Decl. This article is an “About this

20

Event” webpage at Nasdaq’s website and announces that Newmark Group Inc. will celebrate is

21

IPO. Thus, like the Amended S-1 Form, this article pertains to Defendants’ IPO and sales of

22

securities. Moreover, it is unclear whether Defendants or Nasdaq published this article. The

23

Court therefore does not find that the Nasdaq article constitutes clear and convincing evidence that

24

supports a finding of contempt.

25

In addition, Plaintiff filed a declaration of Tom Dao who states that he received an “email

26

from a contact” that references a financing deal facilitated by “NKF Capital Markets.” Dao Decl.,

27

ECF 177-5; see also Exs. 1 and 2 to Dao Decl, ECF 177-6, -7. This evidence does not support a

28

showing of contempt because Defendants are not enjoined from using NKF Capital Markets to
17

1

offer mortgage services.

2

ii.

3

Evidence Attached to Plaintiff’s Motion to Submit New Evidence at ECF 207

Plaintiff submitted new evidence of Defendants’ (1) January 4, 2018 PTO declarations

4

(ECF 203-1, -2, -3), (2) January 26, 2018 promotional email (ECF 199-9), (3) the email, voicemail

5

greeting, marketing materials of Michael Grausz (Defendants’ debt and equity financing

6

professional) (ECF 202-7), (4) screenshots of their websites (ECF 203-3) and recent press releases

7

(ECF 202-8), (5) recent public earnings presentation and financial reports (Exs. 1 and 2 to Yip

8

Decl., ECF 207-2, -3; ECF 202-8), (6) website video of Defendants’ IPO (ECF 202-9), (7) an

9

email dated December 15, 2017 and received by Jeff Wilcox, Plaintiff’s principal (ECF 205), (8) a
January 7, 2018 email from David Woodward, the CEO of CompassRock Real Estate (ECF 185-

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

1), and (9) a January 27, 2018 text message from a potential client to George Mitsanas, Plaintiff’s

12

principal (ECF 199-8). ECF 207. The Court addresses each evidence below.

13

First, the January 4, 2018 PTO declarations pertain to Defendants’ NEWMARK KNIGHT

14

FRANK trademark. ECF 203-1, -2, -3. This evidence can no longer serve as a basis for contempt

15

because Defendants are not enjoined from using NEWMARK KNIGHT FRANK to offer

16

mortgage services.

17

Second, the January 26, 2018 promotional email forwarded to Mr. Mitsanas by a client

18

contains a link to a survey regarding interest rates. ECF 199-9. The link was provided by

19

Raymond T. Cirz, a Senior Managing Director of Defendants, who uses a “Newmark Knight

20

Frank” signature block. Id. The link connects to a survey page which is titled “NEWMARK

21

FINANCING RATE SURVEY SPREAD OVER TREASURY RATE.” ECF 202-6. Here, a

22

person clicking on the link would know that the survey is provided by “Newmark Knight Frank”

23

based on Mr. Cirz’s position and email signature. The Court thus finds that the survey’s use of

24

NEWMARK in the title is only a technical violation that does not warrant a finding of contempt.

25

See Gen. Signal, 787 F.2d at 1379; see also Facebook, 2017 WL 3394754, at *8. Nevertheless,

26

Defendants shall correct the use of the word NEWMARK in their interest rate surveys.

27
28

Third, Defendants’ debt and equity financing professional, Mr. Grausz, has an email
signature that contains “NKF Capital.” Ex. 2 to Slatt Decl., ECF 199-4. However, below his
18

1

email address, the signature also includes the phrase “Save a Tree - Think Before You Print.

2

Sustainably Newmark Cornish & Carey.” Id. His voicemail greeting states that he works for

3

“Newmark Cornish & Carey.” Slatt Decl. ¶ 10, ECF 202-7. Apparently, Mr. Grausz intended to

4

present that he is now positioned at NKF Capital but by mistake did not omit “Newmark Cornish

5

& Carey” from his email signature and voicemail greeting. This appears to be an inadvertent

6

violation and thus is not sufficient to support a finding of civil contempt. Gen. Signal Corp., 787

7

F.2d at 1379 (holding that inadvertent violations of an order do not constitute contempt).

8

Nevertheless, Defendants shall ensure that their employees correct such issues which may still

9

exist in their email signatures and voicemail greetings.

10

Fourth, Defendants’ website and press releases that refer to “Newmark Knight Frank” in

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

relation to mortgage services do not violate the injunction because Defendants are no longer

12

enjoined from using NEWMARK KNIGHT FRANK to denote the source of such services.

13

The Court further discusses other aspects of the press releases. While some press releases

14

provide that Newmark Group, Inc. operates NKF Capital Markets, they do not state that Newmark

15

Group, Inc. itself provides mortgage services. See, e.g., Ex. 4 to Yip Decl. at ECF 202-8, ECF

16

202-9. Rather, the press releases provide that NKF Capital Markets offer services for arranging

17

financing. Id. For these reasons, the Court does not find that the press releases’ mere reference to

18

Newmark Group Inc. constitute clear and convincing evidence that Defendants are using

19

NEWMARK to promote their mortgage service offerings in violation of the injunction.

20

However, one press release raises an issue. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants’ February 5,

21

2018 press release contains statements that violate the injunction. ECF 207 at 6. This press

22

release discusses BGC Partners, Inc. and Newmark Group, Inc.’s earnings. Ex. 8 to Yip Decl. at

23

ECF 202-8, ECF 202-9. As Plaintiff points out, the press release abbreviates Newmark Group, Inc.

24

as “Newmark” and states under the “About Newmark Group, Inc.” heading:

25
26
27
28

Newmark is a full-service commercial real estate services business
that offers a complete suite of services . . . across the entire
commercial real estate industry.
Newmark’s investor/owner
services and products include capital markets . . . and, under other
trademarks and names like Berkeley Point and NKF Capital Markets,
government sponsored enterprise lending, loan servicing, debt and
structured financing and loan sales.
19

1

Id. To be clear, Defendants may use trademarks and names like Berkeley Point and NKF Capital

2

Markets to offer government sponsored enterprise lending, loan servicing, debt and structured

3

financing and loan sales. However, in particular, the above statements that “Newmark is a full-

4

service commercial real estate services business that offers a complete suite of services . . . across

5

the entire commercial real estate industry” and “Newmark’s investor/owner services and products

6

include capital markets” suggest that Defendants provide mortgage services under the “Newmark”

7

brand in violation of the March 30, 2018 Order. The Court recognizes that Plaintiff requested

8

leave to submit this new evidence after briefing was closed. As such, Defendants did not have a

9

meaningful opportunity to address the substance of those statements at issue. Accordingly, the
Court will allow Defendants to submit a response within seven (7) days of the date of this order.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Defendants may either argue why the press release is not a violation or inform the Court that it

12

will be taken down.
Fifth, Defendants’ public earnings presentation and financial reports submitted by Plaintiff

13
14

contains information regarding Newmark Group, Inc.’s earnings and finances.4 See Exs. 1–2 to

15

Yip Decl. at ECF 207-1; ECF 202-8. These financial documents report the financial status of

16

Defendants’ public company for the purpose of informing investors as opposed to offering

17

mortgage services. Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not shown that those documents

18

constitute clear and convincing evidence that supports a finding of contempt. Affordable

19

Media, 179 F.3d at 1239.

20

Sixth, the video submitted by Plaintiff is a recording of Newmark Group, Inc.’s IPO. This

21

evidence does not support a showing that Defendants violated the injunction order. As discussed,

22

Defendants’ IPO offers “securities” to public investors as opposed to selling mortgage services.
Seventh, a principal of Plaintiff, Jeff Wilcox, received an email from a client asking

23
24

whether Plaintiff went public. Wilcox Decl. ¶ 3, ECF 205. Similarly, Mr. Mitsanas received a

25

text message from a potential client asking whether Plaintiff went public. Mitsanas Decl. at ECF

26

202-4 ¶¶ 2–3; ECF 199-8. The email and text message relate to Defendants’ IPO and has no

27
4

28

One report consolidates Defendant BGC Partners, Inc. and Newmark Group, Inc.’s financial
results. Ex. 2 to Yip Decl. at ECF 207-1.
20

1

bearing on whether Defendants offered mortgage services under “Newmark.” Thus, the evidence

2

does not show that Defendants have violated the injunction.

3

Eighth, the January 7, 2018 email from David Woodward, the CEO of CompassRock Real

4

Estate, inquires whether NKF could refer any “receivership and/or property management

5

assignments.” ECF 185-1. This evidence does not show that Defendants uses NEWMARK to

6

offer mortgage services. Thus, it does not support the contention that Defendants have violated

7

the Court’s preliminary injunction order.

8
9

iii.

Evidence Attached to Plaintiff’s Motion to Submit New Evidence at ECF 222

Plaintiff submitted new evidence of (1) a $18,201 check that was sent to Plaintiff instead to
Defendants (ECF 222-4), (2) Defendants’ advertisement in “The Registry” (ECF 222-2), (3)

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Michael Heagerty’s declaration recounting a February 14, 2018 conversation during a MBA

12

meeting (ECF 222-3), (4) the declaration of Andrew Mekjavich, a vice president who joined

13

Plaintiff in February 2018, regarding his experience of confusion (ECF 222-5), and (5)

14

Defendants’ use of the NEWMARK logo during a cocktail reception at the Commercial Real

15

Estate Finance/Multifamily Housing Convention & Expo (ECF 222-6). ECF 222. The Court

16

discusses each evidence below.

17

First, the $18,201 check was mistakenly sent to Plaintiff instead to Defendants. See ECF

18

222-4. But it is unclear whether the purpose of the $18,201 payment was to compensate for

19

Defendants’ mortgage services or sales and leasing services. For this reason, the relevance of this

20

check as to the issue of contempt is unclear. Thus, this check does not constitute clear and

21

convincing evidence that supports a finding of contempt. Affordable Media, 179 F.3d at 1239.

22

Second, Newmark Knight Frank advertised an internet banner alongside an article about

23

Plaintiff’s mortgage services in “The Registry”. ECF 222 (showing a screenshot of the article and

24

advertisement). This evidence cannot serve as a basis for finding contempt because Defendants

25

are no longer enjoined from using NEWMARK KNIGHT FRANK to denote the source of

26

mortgage services.

27
28

Third, Mr. Heagerty’s declaration recounts his February 14, 2018 conversation during the
MBA meeting. Heagerty Decl. ¶¶ 4–7, ECF 222-3. During that meeting, Mr. Heagerty was asked
21

1

about “what it was like for [Plaintiff] when it was spun off of NKF through NKF’s recent IPO.”

2

Id. ¶ 6. Mr. Mekjavich, Plaintiff’s vice president, similarly testifies that he repeatedly explained

3

that he was not from Newmark Knight Frank during the MBA meeting. Mekjavich Decl. ¶ 4, ECF

4

222-5. These experiences do not show that Defendants offered mortgage services using

5

NEWMARK in violation of the preliminary injunction. Thus, the above statements of Mr.

6

Heagerty and Mr. Mekjavich do not support a finding that Defendants are in contempt of the

7

Court’s order.

8

Finally, during the Commercial Real Estate Finance/Multifamily Housing Convention &
Expo that was held in February 2018, Defendants’ affiliate Cantor Commercial Real Estate

10

(“CCRE”) hosted a cocktail reception. Mekjavich Decl. ¶ 5. CCRE sent an invitation to the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

cocktail reception which included a “Newmark” logo at the bottom left corner:

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Id.; Ex. 1 to Mekjavich Decl., ECF 222-6. Mr. Mekjavich also testifies that CCRE had a large

24

screen that projected rotating images, including the word “Newmark” that “looked the same as

25

what was on the invitation I received.” Mekjavich Decl. ¶ 5. Plaintiff contends that Defendants

26

violated the preliminary injunction order by using “Newmark” during a commercial real estate

27

mortgage event. ECF 222 at 4–5. The Court is concerned that Defendants’ use of “Newmark”

28

during this cocktail reception may constitute a violation of the preliminary injunction order that
22

1

warrants a finding of contempt. The Court also recognizes that Plaintiff requested leave to submit

2

this new evidence after briefing was closed and thus Defendants did not have a meaningful

3

opportunity to address the substance of this evidence. Accordingly, the Court will allow

4

Defendants to submit a response within seven (7) days of the date of this order.

5
6

VI.

CONCLUSION

7

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDRED that:

8

(1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Defendants Are Not in Civil

9

Contempt of the Court’s Preliminary Injunction Order is DENIED IN PART.
(2) Defendants shall modify or remove their (i) press releases and (ii) sales brochures that

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

use “NEWMARK alone or in combination with any other words, but not NEWMARK KNIGHT

12

FRANK alone or in combination with other words, as a trademark to denote the source of the

13

following services—mortgage banking, mortgage brokerage, loan servicing, and investment

14

services which are subordinate to or derivative of mortgage services provided by mortgage

15

brokers—in the field of commercial real estate” to be in compliance with the preliminary

16

injunction within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this order. Defendants may seek an

17

extension but they must submit a declaration in support of their request.

18

(3) Defendants shall correct the use of NEWMARK in their interest rate surveys.

19

(4) Defendants shall ensure that their employees’ email signatures and voicemail greetings

20
21
22
23

are in compliance with the March 30, 2018 Order.
(5) Defendants shall file a compliance report outlining the above corrections within thirty
(30) days of the date of this order.
(6) Defendants may submit a three (3) page response addressing the issues of (i)

24

Defendants’ description that “Newmark is a full-service commercial real estate services business

25

that offers a complete suite of services . . . across the entire commercial real estate industry.

26

Newmark’s investor/owner services and products include capital markets . . . ” in their press

27

release(s) and (ii) Defendants’ display of “Newmark” in their invitation and during the cocktail

28

reception at the Commercial Real Estate Finance/Multifamily Housing Convention & Expo that
23

1

was held in February 2018 within seven (7) days of the date of this order. The Court will not

2

accept a response from Plaintiff.

3

(7) Plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs in bringing this motion is DENIED.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6
7

Dated: May 29, 2018
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
24