Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01603/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01603-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HUSBANDS FOR RENT, INC.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

HANDY HUSBANDS FOR RENT,

INC.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C04-1603 BZ

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR CONTEMPT ORDER

Before the court is plaintiff Husbands for Rent, Inc.’s

motion for a contempt order. There is no need for further

argument, so the hearing scheduled for July 19, 2006 is

VACATED. 

The motion contends that Mr. Ring violated the injunction

entered February 23, 2006 when objectionable language appeared

in advertisements he placed in the March and April issues of

an advertising circular, The Monthly Grapevine. Defendant

contends that Mr. Ring tried to change the objectionable

language after the injunction issued but was unable to do so

with respect to the March issue because of the publication

deadline. As for the April issue, it appears that Mr. Ring

Case 3:04-cv-01603-BZ Document 130 Filed 07/07/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

asked for a change but the circular only made the change in

one issue, and not another. It is not entirely clear why this

happened, but it is not disputed that Mr. Ring asked for a

change. The objectionable language did not appear in

subsequent issues.

On this record, I conclude that plaintiff has not met its

burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that Mr.

Ring failed to substantially comply with the injunction. See

Vertex Distributing, Inc. v. Falcon Foam Plastics, Inc., 689

F.2d 885, 889 (9th Cir. 1982). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED

that plaintiff’s motion for a contempt order against defendant

is DENIED.

In the future, if plaintiff believes that defendant has

violated the injunction, plaintiff is directed to attempt to

resolve the matter with defendant before filing another motion

for a contempt order. 

Dated: July 7, 2006

 Bernard Zimmerman

United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\HUSBANDS\CONTEMPT.ORD.wpd

Case 3:04-cv-01603-BZ Document 130 Filed 07/07/06 Page 2 of 2