Opinion ID: 775415
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Nationwide Permanent Injunction as to Herman Miller's Right of Publicity Claim

Text: 154 We review the district court's grant of a permanent injunction for an abuse of discretion. See CSX Transp., Inc., 964 F.2d at 553.
155 Palazzetti argues that the district court's decision granting a nationwide injunction as a remedy for Herman Miller's right of publicity claim improperly imposed Michigan common law on activities beyond the boundaries of the state. The crux of Palazzetti's argument is that the nationwide injunction is improper because New York, where Palazzetti is incorporated and conducts its primary commercial activities, does not recognize a post-mortem right of publicity. See, e.g., Pirone v. MacMillan, Inc., 894 F.2d 579, 585-86 (2d Cir. 1990). As a result, Palazzetti argues that New York and all other states that do not recognize a post-mortem right of publicity should be excluded from the injunction. 156 The district court rejected this argument, noting that Palazzetti conducts business in interstate commerce out of its New York showroom and headquarters and has stores in states outside of New York. As a result, the district court stated that a nationwide injunction would be appropriate in this case due to the inherent difficulty in policing an injunction that attempts to limit conduct in certain states, and not others. 157 The district court abused its discretion. Courts should exercise caution in extending the right of publicity to states that do not recognize that right: 158 The appropriate geographic scope of an injunction issued to protect the right of publicity is complicated by the variations among state statutes and common law rules.... The issuance of an injunction under state law prohibiting otherwise lawful conduct in another state raises serious concerns. Thus, although a court may have jurisdiction to grant broad relief, an injunction protecting the right of publicity should ordinarily be limited to conduct in jurisdictions that provide protection comparable to the former state. 159 Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition, § 48 cmt.c (1995) (emphasis added). 160 In Carson v. Here's Johnny Portable Toilets, Inc., this court rejected the defendant's argument that the district court abused its discretion by imposing a nationwide injunction. 810 F.2d 104, 105 (6th Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (Here's Johnny II). 15 The facts of Here's Johnny II are distinguishable from the facts of this case. In Here's Johnny II, the defendant challenged the imposition of a nationwide injunction, arguing that it be limited to the state of Michigan. Ibid. The court specifically noted the fact that the defendant is uncertain, at this point, whether it wants to use the phrase 'Here's Johnny' in any state where the substantive law arguably differs from Michigan's. Ibid. Therefore, the court concluded that we see no harm in letting the injunction stand in its present form for the time being, at least. Ibid. The court stated that [i]f the defendant should hereafter decide that it wants to use the phrase in a state (other than Michigan) where it believes such use would be legal but for the injunction, it will be free to seek a modification of the injunction from the district court at that time. Ibid. 161 Unlike in Here's Johnny II, Palazzetti is already operating in a state that does not recognize a post-mortem right of publicity. Moreover, its principal place of business is in that state. It would be unjust to impose Michigan law on Palazzetti's operations in New York and other states that have explicitly refused to recognize a post-mortem right of publicity. Therefore, we hold that the portion of the district court's injunction relating to Herman Miller's right of publicity claims shall be modified to exclude those states that explicitly do not recognize a post-mortem right of publicity. 16