BMW of North America, LLC v. Quality Star Benzz LLC
2:12-cv-00889
D. Nev.Aug 10, 2015Background
- Plaintiffs BMW of North America, LLC and Bayerische Motoren Werke AG obtained a default judgment and permanent injunction (2013) prohibiting Quality Star Benzz LLC from using BMW’s Roundel logo or any confusingly similar marks.
- The injunction barred use on signage, websites, advertisements, business cards, and other materials and prohibited acts likely to cause confusion about sponsorship or affiliation.
- Plaintiffs moved for an order to show cause, alleging Quality Star continued displaying BMW’s Roundel on its building and trucks, violating the injunction.
- Plaintiffs requested the court to (1) find Quality Star in civil contempt, (2) order immediate removal of the logo and compliance with the injunction, and (3) award attorneys’ fees incurred in bringing the motion.
- Quality Star did not file any opposition to the motion, in violation of Local Rule 7-2(d), which treats failure to respond as consent to the motion.
- The court granted the motion, ordered service on the defendant’s resident agent, and scheduled a show‑cause hearing where failure to appear would result in a finding of contempt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Quality Star violated the permanent injunction by displaying BMW’s Roundel | Quality Star continued to display and feature BMW’s Roundel on its signage and trucks, violating the injunction | No opposition filed; no contrary factual or legal argument presented | Court found plaintiffs’ motion meritorious and granted an order to show cause |
| Standard for civil contempt and required proof | Plaintiffs argued clear and convincing evidence of violation supports contempt proceedings | Not addressed due to no response | Court applied Ninth Circuit standard and required show‑cause hearing to determine contempt |
| Effect of defendant’s failure to oppose under Local Rule 7‑2(d) | Failure to respond constitutes consent to granting the motion | N/A | Court treated defendant’s nonresponse as consent and granted the motion |
| Relief sought (removal, compliance, attorneys' fees) | Plaintiffs sought injunction enforcement, removal of marks, and reimbursement of attorneys’ fees | N/A | Court ordered show‑cause hearing and reserved determination of sanctions/fees pending hearing and fee submission |
Key Cases Cited
- Whittaker Corp. v. Execuair Corp., 953 F.2d 510 (9th Cir. 1992) (civil contempt can coerce compliance or compensate the movant)
- In re Bennett, 298 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2002) (contempt requires violation of a definite, specific court order)
- General Signal Corp. v. Donallco, Inc., 787 F.2d 1376 (9th Cir. 1986) (same standard for contempt proof)
- United States v. Ayres, 166 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 1998) (movant must prove violation by clear and convincing evidence)
- Wolfard Glassblowing Co. v. Vanbragt, 118 F.3d 1320 (9th Cir. 1997) (violation cannot rest on a reasonable, good‑faith interpretation of the order)