Opinion ID: 203606
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: VSC's Request for Broader Injunctive Relief

Text: Our review of the trial court's choice of injunctive relief is for abuse of discretion. Metro-Goldwyn Mayer, Inc. v. 007 Safety Prods., Inc., 183 F.3d 10, 14-15 (1st Cir. 1999). The terms of the injunction issued enjoined Unisys from using the trademarks or service marks 3D VISIBLE ENTERPRISE, 3D-VE, or VISIBLE, in the sale, offering for sale, distribution or advertising in the United States of goods or services in the enterprise modeling or enterprise architecture fields. The injunction also ordered Unisys to remove all uses of the 3D VISIBLE ENTERPRISE, 3D-VE, and VISIBLE marks from the Internet website www.unisys.com, and ... [to] remove and destroy all other advertising or promotional materials that are within the United States and within the control of Unisys and that incorporate the marks 3D VISIBLE ENTERPRISE, 3D-VE, and VISIBLE. The injunction allowed Unisys to continue using the marks internally and to continue using visible in its ordinary descriptive sense. VSC argues that the court erred in refusing to bar Unisys' use of VISIBLE on Unisys' country-specific websites based outside of the United States and in allowing Unisys to use visible in its ordinary descriptive sense. VSC argues that allowing Unisys to use VISIBLE in its non-U.S. websites contravenes the principle that Lanham Act jurisdiction may extend to extraterritorial conduct by American citizens that has a substantial effect on domestic commerce. See generally McBee v. Delica Co., Ltd., 417 F.3d 107, 116-18 (1st Cir.2005) (noting that the Lanham Act may reach such conduct but that [t]he reach of the Lanham Act depends on context). There was no evidence that VSC maintained any overseas websites or that it had any substantial overseas sales. Its argument to the district court focused on the possibility that domestic customers could access Unisys' overseas websites from the United States. There was no error of law or abuse of discretion; the court's stated reason for rejecting VSC's broader language was that it found the proposed injunction simply so broad ... as [to be] largely unworkable in the real world. VSC's challenge to allowing Unisys to use the word visible in its ordinary descriptive sense also fails. VSC argues the court's decision was error because the trial record disclosed no use in the relevant field of visible as a descriptive term. The trial court had first-hand exposure to the litigants and the evidence, Rosario-Torres v. Hernandez-Colon, 889 F.2d 314, 323 (1st Cir.1989) (en banc), and it acted well within its discretion [6] in deciding that a narrower prohibition would be adequate to prevent future harm.