N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT SUNEAR TH, INC ., a C a l ifornia c orporation; THE SOLAR AY C ORPOR ATION, a

Ha wa i ia n c orporation, Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts, v. SUN EAR TH SOLAR

POW ER C O., LTD., a C hine se lim ite d lia

bility c om pa ny , FKA Ningbo Sola

r Ele c tric Powe r C o., Ltd.; NB SOLAR

USA INC ., a

C a lifornia c orporation, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-17622 D.C . No. 4:11-c v-04991-C W M EM O R ANDUM *

SUNEAR TH, INC ., a C a l ifornia c orporation; THE SOLAR AY C ORPOR ATION, a

Ha wa i ia n c orporation, Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts, v. SUN EAR TH SOLAR

POW ER C O., LTD., a C hine se lim ite d lia

bility c om pa ny , FKA Ningbo Sola

r Ele c tric Powe r C o., Ltd.; NB SOLAR

USA INC ., a

C a lifornia c orporation, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 15-16096 D.C . No. 4:11-c v-04991-C W



# FIL ED MAY24 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALSAppe a l from the Unite d State s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia C la udia W ilke n, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 8, 2015 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : KOZINSKI, B YB EE, a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc u it Judge s. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

granting a

n injunc t ion tha

t pe rm itte d Sun Ea

rth Sola r Powe r C o., Ltd. a

nd its subsidia

ry NB Sola r USA Inc . (c olle c tive ly , “ SESP” ) to ide ntify Sun Ea rth Sola r Powe r C o ., Ltd. a s the
m anufa c ture r, im

porte r, or se lle r on goods “ brande d a s NB Sola

r rathe r tha

n Sun Earth . . . to the

m inim um e xte nt ne c e ssa

ry a s re quire d by

la w or ordina

ry busine s s c ustom s to ope ra te within the Unite d State s unde r the NB Sola r nam e .” Whe n fa shioning a

n injunc tion to re m e dy tra de m ark infringe m e nt, the distric t c ourt ha s the d isc re tion to pe rm it non-m isle a ding use s of a tra de nam e . Se e E. & J

. Gallo W ine ry v . Gallo C

attle C o. , 967 F.2d 1280, 1297–98 (9th C ir. 1992). Nor doe s the e xc e ption viola

te R ule 65(d)’ s re quire m e nts tha t the orde r granting theinjunc tion

“ sta te its te rm s spe c ific a lly ” and “ de s c ribe in re a sona ble de ta i l . . . thea c t or a c ts re stra i ne d.” Fe d. R
. C iv. P. 65(d). An injunction a l lowing lim ite d use of a tra de m a rk ne e d n o t “ c ata log the e ntire unive rse of possibleuse s” but m ust only , a s

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. 2he re , give the tra de m ark holde r “ a de quate notic e ” of the e njoine d pa rty ’ s pe rm issibleuse s . Se e GoTo.c om, Inc . v . W alt Disne y C o. , 202 F.3d 1199, 1211 (9th C ir. 2000). The distric t c ourt did not err in de te rm ining tha t this wa s not a

n e xc e ptiona l c a se . The distric t c ourt did not c le arly e rr in its de t e rm i nation tha t SESP’ s infringing c onduc t wa s the re sult of a ne glige nt fa ilure to inve stiga te , not

“ m a lic ious, fra

udule nt, de libe ra te , or willful”infringe m e nt. Se e Fifty -Six HopeRd. Music , Ltd. v . A.V.E.L.A., Inc
. , 778 F.3d 1059, 1078 (9th C ir. 2015). Nor did the distric t c o urt c le a

rly e rr in de te rm ining tha

t SESP’ s m isste ps in its e fforts to c om ply with thepre lim ina

ry injunc tion we re the re sult of inc om p e t e nc e and c are le ssne ss, not intentiona l m ista ke s. Appe lla

nts a rgue tha t a re c e nt Supre m e C ourt c a s e inte rpre ting thePa te nt Ac t a lte re d the de finition of “ e x c e p tiona l” unde r the L anham

Ac t’ s fe e -shifting provision. Se e Oc tane Fitne ss, LLC v . IC ON He alth & Fitne ss, Inc
. , 134 S. C t. 1749, 1756 (2014). Appe lla nts a rgue tha t unde r Oc tane Fitne ss the distric t c ourt should ha ve ana ly z e d the ir c la im

for fe e s unde r a

“ tota lity of the c irc um sta

n c e s” te st inste a d of looking to our prior c a s e la w re quiring

“ m a lic ious, fra

udule nt, de libe ra te , or willful”infringe m e nt. W e are bound by a post- Oc t aneFitne ss pa ne l’ s de c ision a

pply ing our prior de finition of e xc e ptiona l.

3Se e Fifty -Six HopeRd. Music

, Ltd. , 778 F.3d a

t 1078 (c iting Grac iev . Grac ie , 217 F.3d 1060, 1068 (9th C ir. 2000)). Furthe r, give n the distric t c ourt’ s findings, we have littledoubt tha t this c a se is une xc e ptiona l e ve n unde r Oc taneFitne ss ’ s tota lity

of the c irc um sta

n c e s te st. SESP’ s produc ts be a

r the “ Sun Ea

rth” nam e a

broa d
. The distric t c ourt found tha t SESP’ s le a d e xe c utive “ c re dibly and c onsiste ntly ” te stifie d tha t SESP did not inte nd to c opy

Sun Ea rth’ s m ark but inste a d sought to unify its U.S. bra nd with its globa l brand. SESP a l so suc c e ssfully re giste re d its m ark with theUSPTO and the distric t c o urt c re d ite d SESP’ s e xpla nation tha t it m ista ke n ly be lie ve d tha

t this re gistra tion e sta blishe d non-infringe m e nt. As to the we bsite s, the distric t c ourt found tha t SESP’ s post-injunc tion fa ilure to im p le m e nt c hoic e pa ge s wa s due to IT inc o m pe te nc e a nd tha t SESP volunta

rily brought itse lf into c om

p lia n c e a fte r Sun Earth file d its c onte m

pt m otion. As to the

la be ls, the distric t c ourt de te rm ine d tha t SESP’ s origina l la

be l viola te d the m odifie d pre lim ina

ry injunc t ion be c a

use it inc l ude d the m anufa c ture r’ s na m e at the top a s oppose d to thebottom of the la be l. The la b e l inc l ude d

the words “ Sun Ea

rth Sola r Powe r C o ., Ltd.” ne xt to a NB Sola r logo, a nd in thesa

m e siz e font a s the othe r te xt on thela be l. Aga in, the distric t c ourt found tha

t SESP volunta

rily c om plie d onc e notifie d of the de fic ie nc y . Sim ila rly , the distric t c o urt found tha t SESP’ s va

rious fa c tua l m issta

te m e nts in its 4c ourt filings were due to “ m ista ke and c are le ssne ss” and we re “ a ffirm at ive ly a c knowle dge d a

nd c orre c t e d.” Fina l ly , SESP’ s brie f a sse rtion of non-frivolous, sta te -law c ounte rc la im s c annot m ake this a c a se of “ e x c e p tiona l” infringe m e nt unde r the La

nha m Ac t. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in fa iling to order c onte m pt sa nc tions a ga inst SESP for infringing c onte nt on its inde pe nde nt distributors’ we bsite s. The injunc t i on only a pplie d to we bsite s m a i nta i ne d by SESP. Sun Ea

rth, Inc . ha s not shown tha

t SESP e nga ge d in thety

pe of knowing, a ffirm at ive c onduc t ne c e ssa ry for it to ha

ve a ide d or a

be tte d its distributors’ viola tions. Se e Inst. of C e tac e a n Re

se a rc h v . Se a She

phe rd C onse rv ation Soc ’y , 774 F.3d 935, 950–52 (9th C ir. 2014). Appe lla nts a lso re que st a

ttorne y s’ fe e s a s da

m a ge s for tim e e xpe nde d re sponding to SESP’ s c ross a ppe a l. SESP file d a

c ross a p p e a l, fa ile d to prose c ute it, but re fuse d to stipula

te to dismissa l. W e re c ogniz e that a p pe l la nts m ay be e ntitle d to a

m ode st fe e award due to this dila t ory c o nduc t, se e 28 U.S.C . § 1912, Fe d. R . App. P. 38, a

nd re fe r a ppe lla nts’ m otion to the

Appe lla te C om m issione r. Se e 9th C ir. R . 39-1.9.

5Ac c ordingly , we AFFIRM the distric t c ourt’ s pe rm ane nt injunc tion, its

de nia l of a

ttorne y s’ fe e s to a

ppe lle e , a n d its de nia l of sa

nc tions. 2 AFFIRM E D .

2 W e a l so DENY Appe lla nts’ m o tion to supple

m e nt the re c ord a s m oot. 6