Opinion ID: 787779
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Overall Trade Dress

Text: 11 We consider first the district court's finding that Papanicolaou violated a provision of the injunction designed to protect the cumulative impression conveyed by certain aspects of Jerry's Deli's trade dress. The injunction order prohibited Papanicolaou from using in combination the following elements: 12 1. Broadway Lettering in its logo, service mark, advertising, promotions, souvenirs, or in-house, take-out or catering menus; 13 2. The colors red and white with green accents as predominant in its advertising, promotions, souvenirs, or restaurant decor; 14 3. Broadway show posters as a predominant feature of its restaurant decor; 15 4. Stage or movie style lighting fixtures in its restaurant decor. 16 In its contempt order, the district court found that Papanicolaou had persisted in using all of the above four elements in a manner likely to create consumer confusion. 17 Considering all the evidence in the record, the district court did not clearly err in finding that: (1) Broadway lettering appears prominently in Defendant's logo, service mark, advertising... [and] menus; (2) the colors red and white with green accents appear predominantly in Defendant's advertising or promotions; and (3) Defendant's use of Broadway show posters and stage or movie style lighting fixtures as predominant features of its restaurant decor violates elements 3 and 4 of [the relevant paragraph] of the Injunction. 18 Notwithstanding his assertion that the district court's findings were based on no evidence, Papanicolaou apparently fails to understand that we may not replace the district court's factual findings with our own unless we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. See Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234, 242, 121 S.Ct. 1452, 149 L.Ed.2d 430 (2001). Instead, the theme of his argument seems to be that he cannot be found in contempt of the injunction because he took ... steps to comply and did not engage in a shell game to ... test its boundaries. 19 Specifically, Papanicolaou does not challenge the presence of Broadway lettering in his restaurant's materials. Neither does he contest his continued use of the restricted colors and the Broadway show posters. He argues, however, that neither of these features was predominant because the entire color scheme of the restaurant had changed to earthtones and the posters were but a natural advertisement. Both of these arguments miss the point; even if we agreed, we would still have to affirm. 20 With respect to the colors, the injunction limited their use as a predominant feature in Roxy's Deli's advertising, promotions, souvenirs, or restaurant decor. The district court found them predominant in the menu and outdoor sign for Roxy's — that is, its advertising and promotions. Papanicolaou, however, claims only that the colors were not predominant in the restaurant decor. Because the injunction limited the use of the colors in advertising, promotions, ... or restaurant decor — not advertising, promotions, ... and restaurant decor — Papanicolaou's argument simply misses its mark. His attack with respect to the Broadway show posters suffers from the same affliction. The injunction restricts Roxy's use of the posters as a predominant feature of its restaurant decor; it makes no exception for posters that would be a natural advertisement. 21 Papanicolaou also urges us to reject the district court's findings as to the lighting fixtures. He insists that his smaller overhead studio lighting was categorically different from the  stage or movie style lighting fixtures contemplated by the injunction. This argument is odd indeed. Apparent in the photographs of the interior of Roxy's are lighting fixtures that look like the type found in theaters and movie studios, a fact not lost on the district court. Whether these are termed movie style or studio lighting fixtures does not change the fact that their use is limited by the terms of the injunction. We are unpersuaded that the district court erred in finding Papanicolaou in contempt of this provision of the injunction.