Opinion ID: 2816581
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Defendants’ Challenge to the Contempt Ruling

Text: Defendants appeal from the district court’s order holding them in contempt for failing to withdraw advertising bearing the prohibited logo design by the date specified in the preliminary injunction. We review a district court’s finding of civil contempt for an abuse of discretion. Liberte Capital Grp., LLC v. Capwill, 462 F.3d 543, 550 (6th Cir. 2006). Factual findings underlying the contempt ruling are reviewed for clear error. Innovation Ventures, 763 F.3d at 544. “A court's ability to issue injunctions, and then enforce those injunctions with a finding of contempt, springs from the court's inherent equitable powers.” Innovation Ventures, 763 F.3d at 544 (citing Porter v. Warner Holding Co., 328 U.S. 395, 398 (1946)). In order to support a motion for civil contempt, a plaintiff has “the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that [the defendant] ‘violated a definite and specific order of the court requiring [the defendant] to perform or refrain from performing a particular act or acts with knowledge of the court’s order.’” Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Crowley, 74 F.3d 716, 720 (6th Cir. 1996) (quoting NLRB v. Cincinnati Bronze, Inc., 829 F.2d 585, 591 (6th Cir. 1987)). There is no requirement to show intent beyond knowledge of the order. In re Jaques, 761 F.2d 302, 306 (6th Cir. 1985). The order at issue here is the permanent injunction entered by the district court on February 24, 2014. The injunction mandated that Defendants “MUST . . . [w]ithdraw all advertising in all media that bears the logos set out herein on or before April 30, [2014].” (R. 126, Judgment, PageID 2912 (emphasis in original).) The injunction also required Defendants to “dispose of, by sale or destruction, all existing stock of products bearing the logos set out herein on or before September 30, 2014.” (Id.) The district court found Defendants in contempt on June 24, 2014 based on their publication of advertising materials, after April 30, 2014, that included photographs of Defendants’ wheels prominently displaying the old logo. The district court ordered Defendants to comply with the terms of the injunction, imposed a $500 fine for each day following the ruling until they fully complied with the order, and required Defendants to pay Plaintiff $2,500 in attorneys’ fees. These orders were not an abuse of discretion. Defendants argue that the injunction was ambiguous on the theory that permission to continue selling products bearing the old logos until Nos. 14-1357/1608/1939 CFE Racing Products v. BMF Wheels, et al. Page 32 September 2014 created an implied exception to the requirement to withdraw advertising bearing the logo. The terms of the injunction do not admit such a meaning; rather, the injunction clearly states two absolute, independently applicable requirements: Defendants were required to withdraw “all advertising in all media that bears the logos set out” in the judgment by the deadline of April 30, 2014; separately, Defendants were required to dispose of all products bearing the logos, by sale or otherwise, by September 30, 2014. Defendants could easily comply with both requirements simultaneously by displaying product photographs that did not show the old logo, or by displaying advertising that did not include pictures of the product. Defendants also quibble with the district court’s choice of words in describing its order as “clear and definite.” Instead, Defendants argue the order must be “clear and unambiguous”— but that is simply a formulation of the same concept preferred by other circuits, and one which we have previously recognized as the equivalent of “definite and specific.” Grace v. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 72 F.3d 1236, 1243 (6th Cir. 1996). Of course, the slight variation in phrasing does not provide Defendants a basis to evade the clear import of the district court’s holding.