Opinion ID: 381331
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Standard for Modification of the Injunction

Text: 14 Exxon Corporation seeks to modify the original injunction and impose additional limitations upon the defendant. 2 The standard that Exxon Corporation must meet in order to justify the imposition of additional restrictions is, under present law, uncertain. The starting point for this Court's analysis must be the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 391 U.S. 244, 88 S.Ct. 1496, 20 L.Ed.2d 562 (1968). 15 United Shoe Machinery involved the Government's effort to take stronger steps to remedy the corporation's monopolization of the shoe machinery market. The district court, which issued the initial injunction enjoining the corporation from monopolizing the shoe machinery business, refused to modify the injunction at the Government's request. The district court held that its power to modify was limited to cases involving (1) a clear showing of (2) grievous wrong (3) evoked by new and unforeseen conditions. United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 266 F.Supp. 328, 330 (1967), citing United States v. Swift & Co., 286 U.S. 106, 52 S.Ct. 460, 76 L.Ed. 999 (1932). On appeal the Supreme Court rejected the use of the Swift test for deciding whether to impose additional restrictions on a defendant. The Supreme Court instead instructed the district court to determine whether the relief originally ordered had produced the intended results. If it has not, the District Court should modify the decree so as to achieve the required result with all appropriate expedition. 391 U.S. at 252, 88 S.Ct. at 1501. 16 The holding in United Shoe Machinery indicates that an injunction may be modified to impose more stringent requirements on the defendant when the original purposes of the injunction are not being fulfilled in any material respect. 11 C. Wright and A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2961 (1973). In the case at bar, the district court designed the original injunction to prevent defendant from infringing on plaintiff's rights and engaging in unfair competition. Thus, if plaintiff can establish that the new marks adopted by the defendant, Texon and Tex-On, also infringe on plaintiff's rights in its federally registered EXXON mark, then appropriate relief should be granted.