Th e Cle rk of Court is d ir e c te d to ame nd

the of fi c ia l c a pti on in t his c a se to c on fo rm

to * the listing of the pa

rties above

. 1 08- 2894- cv (L ) , 08- 3119- cv ( con) C ol d St one C r eam er y, I nc. v. G or m an UN ITED STA

TES CO URT OF AP P EALS F OR TH E S ECO N D CI RCU IT 

## SUMMA RY ORDER
Ru li ng s b y su m m ar

y o r de r do no t h ave pr ece de nt ia l e ff ect . Ci ta ti onto a su m m ar y o r de r filed on or

after January 1, 2007, is permit ted and is gover ned by F ederal Rule of Appellate Pr ocedure 32.1 and thi s court’s Local Rule 32.1 .1. When citing a summ ary ord er in a docu ment file d wit h t hi s co ur t, a p ar ty m us t c it e ei th er

th e F ed er al

App en di x o r

anel ect r on ic da ta ba se (withthe not ation “sum mary or der”) . A party citin g a summar y order must serve a copy of it on any part

y not r epresented by cou nsel. At a stated term

of the Un ited Stat es Court of Appeals for t he Second Circuit , held at th e Daniel Pat rick Moynihan Un ited Stat es Courthouse, 500 Pearl St reet, in t he City of New York, on the t wenty-second day of

January, two tho usand and ten
. PR E SE NT: A M ALYA L. K

E AR SE , J OS É A. C AB R ANES , D EBRA A NN L I V I NGS T ON ,

Circuit Jud ges .

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x C OL D S T ONE C REAME RY , I NC .,

Plainti ff-App ellee ,

-v .- No s . 08 -2 894 -c v ( L) , 08-3119-cv (con) J ER WAI NE I. G O RMAN and J. G OR MA N I N VE S TM EN T G R OUP , I NC .,

Defenda nts-App ellants,

M I KE B ONDS , Appella nt

. *

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x2

F OR P LAIN TIF F
- AP P ELLEE : Vin cen t L . D eB ias e, Co r bally, Gartland and R appley ea, LLP, Po ugh keep s ie, NY. F OR DE F EN DAN T- AP P ELLAN T: J er wain e I . G or man , Ro s edal e, NY, pro se
. Appea l from a May 2, 2008 order and a June 3, 2008 order of the United States Distr ict Court fo r th e Eas te r n D is tr

ict of New Yor k ( Dav idG. T r ager , Judge

).
UPON DUE CONSIDERAT ION, IT IS HEREB Y ORDERED, A DJUDGED, AND DE CRE ED th at the ap peal s of Mike B on ds andJ . G or manI nv es tm ent Gr ou p, I nc. be DIS MISS ED , th e Di s tr ict Cou r t’ s or der

of M ay 2, 200 8 b e AF F IRME D , an d the c aus e be REMA NDED fo r

fu r th er pr oce edi ngs as app r op r

iat e. This is an appea l from an order enjoining defendants-appella nts J . Gorman Investm ent Group (the “ Gr ou p”) andJ er

wain e Go r man(“ Go r man ”) , pro se , from us ing the trademarks, name, signa ge, a nd advertising of, or otherwis e holding themselve s out t o be affiliate d with plaintiff-appelle e Col d Stone Cr eam er y, I nc. (“ Col d S to ne” ), inany w ay, an d al s o f r om an o r der

of con te mp t e nt er ed b y the D is tr ict Court aga inst Gor man, the Group, and Mike Bonds (“B onds”), who at one point held himself out to be the Group’s attorney a nd the new ow ner of the Cold Stone tradema rked items. This action stems fr om a De cem ber

200 6 f r anchis e agr eem ent

ands ub leas e agr eem ent

bet weenth e Gr ou p an d Co ldSt on e, per mi tt in g the G r ou p t o u s e Col d S to ne’ s tr adem ar ks inor der to op er ate a s to r e inHu nt in gt on , N ew York. In January 2008, C old Stone terminated both ag reements with the Group for failure to pay rent, and ac cording to the terms of the agree ments, the Group was to imm ediate ly ce ase using, and return, any p r op er ty

bear in g Col d S to ne tr adem ar ks

. In March 2008, Cold Stone a llege s, it dis covered that Gorman and the Group had begun con s truct io n o f a n i ce cr eam s to r e inQu een s , N ew Yo r k whichwas bear in g, w itho ut autho r izat io n, Col d Stone trademark signs, wallpa per, menu boards, and cups. In April 2008, Col d Stone filed a c omplaint and supporting affidavits in the Dis trict Court alleging trademark infringement, breach of conta ct, and other claims, seeking moneta ry damage s and a permanent injunc tion. Cold Stone a lso s ought a temporary restraining order and a prelimina ry injunction to prevent Gorman and the Group from in fr in gin g onCol d S to ne’ s tr adem ar ks . Al on g wi thaf fi dav it s andph ot ogr aph s dep ict in g the alleg edl

y infringing stor e in Quee ns, Cold Stone attac hed to the documents filed in the District Court a copy of a letter sent by Bonds in which he expla ined that he w as the attorney for “Gorm an’s Coldstone” [sic] and that his “client has a signed franchi se agreement with Cold Stone C reamery Inc. whic h allow s [his ] client to us e Col dS to ne [ s ic] s ign age. ” P lai nt if f’ s Exh . 2.
I n Ap r il 2 008 , the D is tr

ict Cou r t d eni ed Co ldSt on e’s mo ti onfo r a te mp or ary r es tr ainin g or der ands et M ay 1, 200 8 as th e r et ur n d ate fo r th e mo ti onfo r

a pr eli mi nar

y in ju nct io n. B oth o f the n ame d defendants failed to appe ar and on May 2, 2008, the District Court entered an order of injunction directed at de fendants Gorm an and the Group. T he May 2 order prohibited Gorman, the Group, and “thei r of fi cer s , age nt s , s er

van ts , em pl oye es , at to r ney s , p ar ent s , s ub s idiar ies andr elat ed c om panies andall3

persons acting for, with, by, through or under them” from “us ing or displaying in a ny manne r the registered tr adema rks of

Cold Stone C reamery, Inc., . . . related design ma rks and s tylize d cone de sign, or any c ol or abl e im it ati onth er eof ” ( in te r nal capi tal s r emo ved

), at the Q uee ns s to r e or

at a ny o th er location. Doc ket Entry #9, No. 0 8-cv-1710 (E.D.N.Y . May 2, 200 8) (“Docket Entry”). Although in the May

2, 2008 order the Distr

ict Court stated that Cold Stone ha d sought a “t emp or ary r es tr ainin g or der , p r eli mi nar y in ju nct io n, and perma nent inj

unction ,” and in tha t order the Court purport ed to “

perma nently enjoin[ ]” defenda nts et al. (emphases added), in fact the C old Stone order to
s ho w cau s e gi

ving no ti ce o f i ts mo ti onhadmen ti on ed o nly a “P r eli mi nar y,” no t a p er man ent

in ju nct io n. Since the Distr

ict Court cannot properly grant permane nt relief in a procee ding in whic h the nonmoving par ty has bee n gi

venno ti ce o nly that

a pr eli mi nar

y in ju nct io n i s at i s s ue, see, e.g

. , Wo e v . Cuo mo , 80 1 F .2d 627, 629 (2d C ir. 1986), we c onsider the May 2 injunction order to be a prelimina ry and not a permane nt injunction.
On Ma y 7 , 2 00 8, Go rma n fi le d a le tte r re qu estin g t ha t th e D ist ric t C ou rt “ re op en ” t he ca se bec aus e he hadbee n u nawa r e of th e M ay 1, 200 8 co ur t d ate , didno t o wn the i ce cr eam s to r e lo cat ed i n Qu een s , an d h ad r eli nqui s hedhi s r es po ns ib ili ty fo r Col d S to ne tr adem ar k m ate r ial s to B on ds

. See ROA Doc. 13 (Motion to Reopen). On May 1 2, 2008, C old Stone sent a copy of the May 2 preliminary injunction order to Bonds , demanding that he follow its terms and informing him that Cold Stone in te nd ed t o m ov e f

or an o r der of con te mp t i f h e f

ail ed t o d o s o. Af

te r Col d S to ne alleg edly ob s er ved that the trademark signs and items were still being displaye d at the Queens store, in violation of the preliminary injunc tion, it filed affidavits and moved by order to s how ca use for

an order of contempt agai ns t G or man , the G r ou p, andB on ds fo r failu r e t o co mp ly wi thth e pr eli mi nar y in ju nct io n. OnM ay 16, 200 8, the m ot

io n p aper s wer e s er

vedup onGo r manandth e Gr ou p an d at th e r es id enc e of

B on ds

. On May 21, 2008 , Bonds filed a timely notice of appe al cha llenging the issuance of the pr eli mi nar y in ju nct io n, bu t n either

B on ds , n or

Go r manor

any r epr es ent ati

ve o f the G r ou p ap pear ed at the contempt hea ring in the Distr ict Court held on May 2 9, 2008. In a judg ment dated June 3, 200 8, the Distr ict Court noted that it had granted a n “injunction a gainst Defendants [Gorman and the Group], together with all pe rs ons acting for, with, by, through or under them, fr om their continued use and/or di s pl ay of Pl ain ti ff ’s r egi s te r ed tr adem ar ks , lo gos , an d thei r tr ade d r es s ” at

th e Qu een s s to r e or

any o th er lo cat io n. I t thenfo un d the d ef end ant s , al on g wi thB on ds as a per s onact in g f or , b y, thr ough o r

un der the defendants, in contempt of court purs uant to Rule 70 of the Federal R ules of Civil Procedure for their failure to comply with that injunc tion, and aw arded Col d Stone $25,00 0 plus attorneys’ fees. T he Distr ict Court also ordered that a U.S. Marshal ac company Cold Stone representative s to r emove the
un autho r izedtr adem ar k m ate r

ial s fr om th e Qu een s s to r e. Also on June 3, 2008, Gorman filed a letter in the Distr ict Court stating that he wa s not the owner of the Queens stor e so he should not be held in contempt. On June 4, Bonds filed a “subsequent notice of appe al,” reque sting that the District Court remove Gorman fr om the order of contempt beca use Bonds himself was the sole owner of the st ore, having purcha sed all of the materials bea ring the Cold Stone trade mark from the Group. On June 20, 2008, Gorman filed a notice of appe al of the Di s tr ict Cou r t’ s or der

of con te mp t, andmo vedto app eal in f o rma p aupe ri

s , which motion w as granted by4

th e Di s tr ict Cou r t. I n S ept emb er

200 8, G or manfileda me r it s br ief inou r Cou r t, argui ng that

he c ould no t a tte nd the co nte mp t he a rin g o f Ma y 2 9, 20 08 , a nd do es n ot o wn the Qu ee ns sto re . G orm a n a lso
s tat ed that B on ds hadagr eedto tak e f ull r es po ns ib ili ty

fo r any mis us e of

th e t r adem ar ks bu t c on ced ed th at J er wain e Go r manin di

vid ually h ad agr eedto act

as man ager

of th e s to r e un til B on ds was “co mf or tab le” r un ni ng the s to r e hi ms elf

. I. P r oc ed ur al

Mat te r s For purposes of

this or der, we refer to the May 2, 2008 order as the “preliminary injunction” a nd th e J un e 3, 200 8 ju dgm ent as th e “co nt emp t o r der ” or “or der of con te mp t. ”
As an i ni ti al m att er , al th ough h e f ile d a t im ely n ot ice o f a pp eal c hallen ging the p r eli mi nar y injunction and a subs equent notice of appeal regarding the order of contempt, Bonds never filed a merits br ief in our Court and may not be represented by Jerwa ine Gorman since there is no indica tion th at G or manis an at to r ney . See Fe d. R. Ap p. P. 3(a)( 2) (“ An ap pellan t’ s failu r e t o t ake any s te p o th er than the timely filing

of a notice of appe al . . . i s ground . . . for the court of appeals to act a s it considers app r op r iat e, i ncl udin g di s mi s s in g the ap peal .”) ; see also 28 U .S. C. § 1 654(“ I n all co ur ts of th e Unit ed St a te s the pa rti es m a y p le a d a nd co nd uc t th ei r ow n c a ses personally or by co unsel . . . .” (empha sis added)); Che ung v. Yo uth Or che st ra F o und. , 90 6 F .2d59, 61 (

2dCir . 19 90) . Acc or di ngl y, we di s mi s s B on ds ’ ap peal

. In addition, since a c orporation may not appea r pro se or be represented by a non-attorney, the appe al of th e J . G or manI nv es tm ent Gr ou p, I nc. is lik ewis e di s mi s s ed. Se e E ag le As so cs . v . B anko f M o ntr eal , 92 6 F.2d 1305, 1308-10 (2d C ir. 1991) (holding that a la yman ma y not represent a separate lega l entity); Second C ir. Local R. 46.1(d)(2) (pr oviding that a corporation may not appe ar pro se ). J er wain e Go r mandi d f

ile a ti mel y no ti ce o f a pp eal, pro se , and bec ause we a re required to con s true l ib er ally pro se pl eadi ngs andin te r pr et th em “ to r ais e the s tr on ges t ar gum ent th at they s ugg es t, ” Bro wnell v. Kro m , 446 F.3d 305, 31 0 (2d Cir. 2006), w e read Gorman’s notice of appe al to cha llenge both th e pr eli mi nar

y in ju nct io n o f M ay 2, 200 8 an d the c on te mp t o r der of J un e 3, 200 8.
II. Preliminar

y Injunction Je rw a in e G orm a n fi rst a rgu es t ha t th e p re li mi na ry in ju nc ti on wa s im pro pe rly issu ed be ca use neither he nor the Group owned the Queens store or infringing materials, having sold everything to Bonds prior t o the issuance of the preliminary injunc tion. Gorman did not ass ert this argument in the Di s tr ict Cou r t b ef

or e the p r eli mi nar

y in ju nct io n was is s ued—h e as s er te d i t f or th e f ir s t t im e inhi s let te r to the Distr

ict Court after th e pr eli mi nar y in ju nct io n was ent er ed. Evenif

we ch os e t o ex cus e thi s waiv er in li gh t of hi s pro se s tatus andclai medlack of no ti ce, w e wo ul d af

fi r m the i nj un ct

io n o n the m er

it s . We r evi ew a dis tr

ict cou r t’ s gr ant

of a pr eli mi nar

y in ju nct io n f or “ab us e of di s cr et io n. ” See Almonta ser v

. N.Y. C ity Dep’t of Educ. , 519 F.3d 505, 50 8 (2d Cir. 2008). “A distr ict court has abused its discretion if it based its ruling on an erroneous view of the lawor on a clea rly erroneous ass essment of th e evi den ce, o r

r end er ed a d ecis io n that

cann ot be l ocat ed w

ithi n the r ang e of

per mi s s ib le d ecis io ns .” Sims v. Blot

, 534 F.3d 117, 13 2 (2d Cir. 2008) (internal quotation ma rks, citations, and alterationsAn o r der of civ il c on te mp t ag ain s t a p ar ty to an ac ti onis nei th er

a f in al o r der no r an 1 in ju nct ive or der andhen ce is gen er ally no t ap peal abl e. See, e.g. , Fox v . Ca pita l Co. , 29 9 U. S. 1 05 (1 936 ). Ho weve r , “u nd er

. . . par ti cul ar

cir cum s tan ces ” wh er e the dis tr ict cou r t h as ent er ed mo net ary ju dgm ent s as s anct io ns fo r civ il c on te mp t, we h ave allo wedapp eals fr om con te mp t o r der s . See N.Y. Tel. Co. v. Comm c’ns Workers o f Am., AFL -CIO , 445 F.2d 39, 45 (2d C ir. 1971). We do not assess whether the circumstance s in the inst ant ca se would wa rrant appellate revi ew, but rather, as s um e arguendo th at tho s e cir cum s tan ces couldbe m et bec aus e we wo ul d af

fi r m the c on te mp t o r der on the merits in any event. 5 om it te d). In c a ses a ll eg

in g t ra de ma rk i nfri ng em en t, a pl a in ti ff se ekin g a pre li mi na ry in ju nc ti on mu st demonstr ate: (1) the like lihood of irreparable injury in the a bsence of an injunc tion and (2) either (a) a lik eli ho odof

s ucc es s onth e me r

it s , o r (b ) a s uf fi cien tly s er

io us qu es ti ongoi ng t o the m er it s to mak e th em f air gr ou nd s fo r

lit igat io n an d the b alan ce o f the h ar ds hi ps mu s t t ip dec id edly t owar d the p lai nt if f. Se e Z ino Dav ido ff S A v . CV S Co rp. , 57 1 F .3d238 , 24 2 ( 2dCir . 20 09)

. Based on the evidenc e in the record, notably including the agreeme nts between the Group and Col d S to ne, it

is clea r th at the G r ou p at

on e po in t o wne d all o f the “ in fr in gin g” p er s on al p r op er ty

th at wa s a ll eg ed ly

di spl a ye d a t th e Q ue en s stor e a nd the rig hts p er ta in in g t o i ts use . Th e a gre em en ts a lso
es tab lis h that

th e Gr ou p was pr ohib it ed f r om s ell in g the r igh ts to us e the tr adem ar kedpr op er ty af te r Col d S to ne t er mi nat ed the f r anchis e andleas e agr eem ent s , b ut di d s o i n v

io lat io n o f tho s e agr eem ent s . B as ed o n thi s evi den ce, a ndth e r eco r d as a who le, Col d S to ne d emo ns tr ate d that it was lik ely t o s ucc eed on the merits in a trademark infringement suit and that Cold Stone woul d likely suff er irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction. A ccordingly , the Distr ict Court did not abuse its discr etion in granting th e pr eli mi nar

y in ju nct io n. We ther ef

or e af fi r m the D is tr

ict Cou r t’ s or der

of M ay 2, 200 8 f

or an in ju nct io n ag ain s t G or man , a n ame d d ef end ant
. III . Order

of Contempt 1
We r evi ew a dis tr

ict cou r t’ s con te mp t o r der

fo r “ab us e of di scr etion .” See, e.g. , Param edics Electromedicina

Comercial, L tda. v. GE Med. Sys. Info. T ech., Inc. , 3 6 9 F. 3 d 645, 655 (2d C ir. 2004). “A pa rty m a y b e h e l d i n c i vil contempt for failure to comply with a c ourt or der if (1) the or der the contemnor faile d t o co mp ly wi this clea r andun amb igu ou s, (2 ) the pro of of no nco mp lia nce is clea r

andcon vin cin g, and (3) the conte mnor has not diligently attempted to comply in a reasonable manner. It need not be establ is hedth at the v

io lat io n was willf

ul .” Id

. ( i n t ern al qu o t at

i o n m ar k s an d ci t at

i o n s o m i t t ed

) . In the in s tan t c as e, the te r ms of

th e co nt emp t o r der

andGo r man ’s un r eas on abl e no nco mp lia nce with the o r der ar e cle ar . Al tho ug h Go rma n s tat es th at h e di d n ot vio lat e the o r der

bec aus e he hadr eli nqui s hed r es po ns ib ili ty

fo r th e mi s us e of

th e Col d S to ne dis pl ays by s ell in g t he di spl a ys to B on ds , it is clea r th at hi s sa le a ct ua ll y e na bl ed the in fri ng em en t a n d d i d n o t re li ev e G orm a n o f re spo nsi bi li ty . Th e f ra nc hi se agr eem ent with Co ldSt on e f

or bad e Go r man from se lli ng Co ldSt on e t r adem ar kedit ems witho ut Col d St on e’s con s ent

andr equ ir ed him , u po n t er mi nat

io n o f his franchis e, t o “p r om pt ly” r et ur n t o Co ld St on e a ll of t he fra nc hi se m a te ria ls. Inst ea d, Go rma n so ld the it em s to Bo nd s wi tho ut C ol d S ton e’ s6

consent and then v o l u n te e re d to act as mana ger, eve n if temporarily, at the Queens store. For all of the se r ea son s, w e c a nn ot sa y t ha t th e D ist ric t C ou rt e rre d i n e n t e ri n g a n o rde r of c on te mp t a ga in st Gorman.
CONCLUSI ON
We ha ve consi d e re d a l l o f the arguments on appeal that are properly before us and have found th em t o b e witho ut

mer it . F or th e r eas on s s tat ed ab ov e, the ap peal s of Mike B on ds andJ . G or man Inv est me nt G rou p, Inc . a r e h er eb y D ISMI SS E D. W e A FFIRM th e p re li mi na ry in ju nc ti on a ga in st Jerwaine Gorman, a nd we R EMAND the ca use to the District Court for furth e r p ro cee dings as are app r op r iat e.

FOR THE C OU R

T, Ca therine O’Haga n Wolfe, C lerk of Court