Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01107/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01107-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Creed Laboratories and Manufacturing, Inc.
Appellant
John Liddiard
Appellant
NCH Corporation
Appellee
Steven Wright
Appellant

Document Text:

. . 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

F I YJ ~~~ D 

United S.fai.A'.. Gt' ,r "' . .M>I'!~,ls F1'.'\ ... - ~l - r.- ; , .. . ",:!1 

NCH CORPORATION, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

STEVEN WRIGHT; CREED LABORATORIES ) 

AND MANUFACTURING, INC.; JOHN ) 

LIDDIARD, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellants. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

JAN 2 2 1991 

~OBERT L. HOECKFI 

Clerk 

No. 90-1107 

(D.C. No. 81-Z-82) 

(D. Colorado) 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and TACHA, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Steven Wright, John Liddiard, and Creed Laboratories and 

Manufacturing, Inc. filed this appeal from a district court 

judgment in favor of plaintiff NCH Corporation on NCH's complaint 

for contempt of a 1981 settlement order in an earlier suit NCH 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-1107 Document: 010110080364 Date Filed: 01/22/1991 Page: 1 
< , • 

filed against defendants for violation of NCH's trade names and 

copyrights. The earlier suit had been settled by an agreement 

under which defendants agreed not to continue to use NCH's trade 

name "Creed." The district court found that defendants had 

violated this agreement and entered judgment against them based 

upon its calculation of defendants' profits from the violation of 

the agreement in the amount of $104,832.00, and made an award of 

attorney's fees of $21,447.67. 

On appeal defendants challenge the district court's award of 

profits derived from defendants' contemptuous conduct, its 

calculation of those profits, and its award of attorney's fees. 

Liddiard, who resigned from the board of directors of Creed 

Laboratories in 1986, sought relief from responsibility for any of 

the profits realized after he left that board. 

The district court did not err in awarding to NCH those 

profits derived from defendants' contemptuous conduct. "[I]n a 

proceeding for civil contempt for disobedience to an injunction 

granted in an infringement suit, the profits derived from the 

violation of the injunction are recoverable." Leman v. KrentlerArnold Hinge Last Co., 284 U.S. 448, 457 (1932). After examini ng 

the briefs and the record, we also affirm the district court's 

calculation of those profits. A district court has broad 

discretion in fashioning civil contempt sanctions. See, ~, 

Howard Johnson Co. v. Khimani, 892 F.2d 1512, 1521 (11th Cir. 

1990); Sizzler Family Steak Houses v. Western Sizzlin Steak House, 

793 F.2d 1529, 1536 n.8 (11th Cir. 1986). The district court in 

the case at hand did not abuse its discretion by refusing to 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-1107 Document: 010110080364 Date Filed: 01/22/1991 Page: 2 
t., · , . ... 

deduct overhead expenses in calculating net profit. See Manhattan 

Indus. v. Sweater Bee By Banff, Ltd., 885 F.2d 1, 7-8 (2d Cir. 

1989) (refusing to deduct claimed overhead expenses in calculating 

net profit because contemnor failed to demonstrate sufficient 

nexus between expenses claimed and sales of infringing goods), 

cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 1477 (1990). Finally, we find that the 

attorney's fees awarded by the district court were appropriate and 

reasonable. 

NCH concedes that the district court should have granted 

relief to Liddiard with respect to profits realized after his 

termination from the board. We accept that concession and affirm 

except for the remand to the district court for calculation of the 

amount of damages for which Liddiard is responsible. The mandate 

shall issue forthwith. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-1107 Document: 010110080364 Date Filed: 01/22/1991 Page: 3