Lexplug logoLexplug

Reno Air Racing Association, Inc. v. McCord

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
452 F.3d 1126 (2006)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A temporary restraining order (TRO) that is improperly issued ex parte without sufficient justification and fails to describe the prohibited conduct with reasonable detail and specificity cannot serve as the basis for a subsequent finding of civil contempt.


Facts:

  • Since 1964, Reno Air Racing Association, Inc. ('Reno Air') has operated the annual National Championship Air Races.
  • Reno Air is the registered owner of federal trademarks for its 'pylon logo,' which features a checkered pylon with two airplanes circling it.
  • Between 1999 and 2002, Jerry McCord sold merchandise, including t-shirts and caps, depicting the term 'Reno Air Races' and artwork containing images of airplanes and a pylon.
  • McCord sold his merchandise from booths located just outside the gates of the annual air race event.
  • In 2000, Reno Air's attorney contacted McCord via letter and telephone to object to his sale of the merchandise.
  • In 2001, a representative from Reno Air again advised McCord that his sales violated the company's trademark rights.

Procedural Posture:

  • Reno Air filed a complaint against Jerry McCord in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, alleging trademark infringement.
  • On the same day, Reno Air applied for an ex parte temporary restraining order (TRO), which the district court granted.
  • Following a two-day bench trial, the district court found McCord had infringed Reno Air's trademarks, awarded monetary damages, and entered a permanent injunction against him.
  • The district court also found McCord in civil contempt for violating the TRO and sanctioned him for Reno Air's attorneys' fees related to the contempt motion.
  • McCord, as appellant, appealed the district court's final judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, challenging both the trademark infringement finding and the contempt order.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a temporary restraining order that lacks the specificity required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d) and is issued ex parte without an adequate showing of necessity under Rule 65(b) provide the fair notice necessary to support a finding of civil contempt against the restrained party?


Opinions:

Majority - McKeown, Circuit Judge

No. A temporary restraining order cannot support a civil contempt finding if it fails to provide fair notice of the prohibited conduct. The TRO was improperly issued ex parte because Reno Air failed to provide specific evidence that McCord himself was likely to destroy or conceal the merchandise if given notice; a general assertion about infringers is insufficient. Furthermore, the TRO violated Rule 65(d)'s specificity requirement because it did not clearly define the 'trademarks' at issue, instead referring to an exhibit showing one of McCord's t-shirt designs. This ambiguity, combined with the phrase 'or any confusingly similar variations thereof,' left a layperson unable to determine what specific conduct was prohibited, thus violating the fair notice requirement and rendering the TRO unenforceable by contempt. The court affirmed the underlying trademark infringement finding, however, concluding the district court did not clearly err in its likelihood-of-confusion analysis.



Analysis:

This case serves as a significant check on the issuance of ex parte temporary restraining orders in trademark cases. It clarifies that the high procedural bars for obtaining such orders without notice are not mere formalities; a party must present specific evidence tied to the defendant's likely conduct, not just generalized fears about infringers. The decision also strongly reinforces the plain-language requirement for injunctions, emphasizing that their validity depends on being understood by a layperson, not just a lawyer. This holding will likely cause litigants to be more cautious in seeking ex parte TROs and encourage district courts to scrutinize both the justification for lack of notice and the clarity of the proposed order's language before granting such extraordinary relief.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Reno Air Racing Association, Inc. v. McCord (2006)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"