Opinion ID: 625108
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Permanent Injunction Cross-Appeal

Text: An injunction should be tailored to eliminate only the specific harm alleged, E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Gallo Cattle Co., 967 F.2d 1280, 1297 (9th Cir. 1992), but it should not be so narrow as to invite easy evasion. McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 336 U.S. 187, 193, 69 S.Ct. 497, 93 L.Ed. 599 (1949). Courts should not enjoin conduct that has not been found to violate any law. See, e.g., Penthouse Int'l, Ltd. v. Barnes, 792 F.2d 943, 950 (9th Cir.1986). Injunctive relief under the Lanham Act must be narrowly tailored to the scope of the issues tried in the case. See Starter Corp. v. Converse, Inc., 170 F.3d 286, 290 (2d Cir.1999) (further tailoring an original injunction issued by a district court under the Lanham Act where it went beyond the scope of issues tried in the case). On cross-appeal, Skydive Arizona contends that the district court abused its discretion by failing to issue a nationwide injunction prohibiting SKYRIDE from falsely stating that they own or operate skydiving centers anywhere in the United States where they do not in fact own or operate such centers. The district court denied the motion for a nationwide injunction because Skydive Arizona failed to prove that SKYRIDE's conduct outside Arizona was illegal. We agree with the district court, and hold that it did not abuse its discretion by refusing to award a nationwide injunction. In limiting the scope of the injunction to Arizona, the district court complied with our precedent that an injunction must be tailored to eliminate only the specific harm alleged. E. & J. Gallo Winery, 967 F.2d at 1297. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's limitation of the permanent injunction to Arizona.