Opinion ID: 6500058
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Graminex’s Website

Text: Graminex and May also argue that the district court abused its discretion in holding them in contempt of the Permanent Injunction based on the clinical studies about Cernilton and Cerniton-branded products that Graminex hosted on its website. According to Graminex and May, the district court abused its discretion in failing to explain why it rejected a comparativeadvertising defense given that the court had earlier clarified that comparative advertising would not violate the Injunction. They argue that because the page hosting the links to these studies explicitly compares Cernilton with Graminex based on the former’s use of solvents in the extraction process, the hosting of clinical studies elsewhere on that page is a continuation of that comparative advertising. The Permanent Injunction limits Graminex’s ability to use Cernelle’s trademarks on its website, stating: the defendants Graminex, L.L.C. and Cynthia May, and each of them, the defendants, their agents, servants, and employees, and all persons in active concert with them, are RESTRAINED AND ENJOINED from maintaining any website that is misleading as to its relationship with the plaintiff or that mentions the products CERNI-QUEEN®, CERNILTON®, POLLISPORT®, POLLEN STARK®, CERVITAL™, NAPOLEN GOLD™, CERNELLE®, and CERNITIN® in any way that suggests that Graminex is involved in the manufacture, development, or ownership of the products; and selling, promoting, or advertising products manufactured by A.B. Cernelle. (R. 85, PageID 2037) The district court concluded that the presence of the Graminex logo on the linked clinical studies violated the Injunction because, although comparative advertising is permissible, the linked studies did not compare the products. Instead, the studies explained the -17- Nos. 21-1579/2649, A. B. Cernelle v. Graminex, L.L.C. benefits of Cernilton and Cernitin for prostate health, and the Graminex logo signaled a link between the subject of that study and Graminex. The record supports the district court’s rejection of the comparative-advertising justification for the clinical studies. Although Graminex had comparative-advertising language on the page linking to the studies, the record suggests that those links would bring up the study in a separate page. This created a disconnect between the comparative advertising language and the clinical studies. Moreover, the studies themselves did not compare Graminex’s products to Cernelle’s products. Instead, the clinical studies merely explained the benefits of Cernelle’s products. As to whether the presence of the Graminex’s logo on the studies was misleading about Graminex’s relationship with the trademarked products, Graminex and May hang their argument largely on the dearth of evidence of consumer confusion. This definition of “misleading” significantly narrows the reach of the Permanent Injunction. Cf. Misleading, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (“delusive, calculated to be misunderstood”). Given that the studies generally offer positive assessments of Cernelle’s products, the presence of Graminex’s logo on those studies does suggest that Graminex has some relationship with the products discussed in those studies. The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding this misleading.