Hereditary Guardianship v. Nat. Spiritual Assembly, 628 F.3d 837

Prior 1966 injunction enjoined the Hereditary Guardianship and its followers from using Bahá'í names, marks, and symbols; the injunction did not bind nonparties directly, but Rule 65(d) extends to those closely identified with an enjoined party or aiding in violations.
The 1966 litigation held the National Spiritual Assembly as the sole Bahá'í authority in the continental United States with exclusive use of Bahá'í marks.
Remey, Marangella, Schlatter and other dissidents later formed groups claiming leadership, creating a schism and multiple successor organizations.
In 2006 the National Spiritual Assembly sought contempt against five nonparties (Marangella, Schlatter, Provisional National Council, Second International Council, Bahá'í Publishers) alleging violation of the 1966 injunction.
The district court rejected privity under Merriam v. Webster Dictionary Co. and required binding through actual privity; the Seventh Circuit reversed in part, reconciling Merriam with Alemite and Zenith Radio to affirm nonparty privity in specific circumstances.
The Seventh Circuit held that Merriam’s “legal identity” approach may apply to a very narrow set of nonparties (key officers/central figures) with close identification and control, but the particular nonparties here were not legally identified with the Hereditary Guardianship and thus not bound.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Merriam applies to bind nonparties under the injunction	Merriam correctly identifies legally identical nonparties	Merriam is misread or in tension with Alemite/Zenith	Merriam may apply, but facts do not show privity here
Whether the five nonparties were in privity with the Hereditary Guardianship	Nonparties were part of the Guardianship's doctrinal lineage	Nonparties are sufficiently distinct groups with divergent leadership	Not in privity; no sufficient legal identification
Whether Jensen's involvement binds Second International Council and Bahá'í Publishers	Jensen’s ties create privity through adequate representation/identification	No adequate representation or continuity; Jensen dissociated before injunction	Not bound by injunction
Whether Remey’s lineage binds Second International Council and Bahá'í Publishers	Remey’s succession claims establish privity	No statutory/constructive continuation; no assets or control transfer	Not bound by injunction

Merriam Co. v. Webster Dictionary Co., 639 F.2d 29 (1st Cir. 1980) (nonparty 'key employee' may be bound when closely identified with enjoined party)
Alemite Manufacturing Corp. v. Staff, 42 F.2d 832 (2d Cir. 1930) (nonparty cannot be bound absent day in court; cannot enjoin wider world)
Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100 (U.S. 1969) (nonparty bound after hearing; cannot be bound without notice and opportunity to contest)
Regal Knitwear Co. v. N.L.R.B., 324 U.S. 9 (U.S. 1945) (privity limits for injunctive enforcement)
Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (U.S. 2008) (adequate-representation privity limits; day-in-court principle)
Flowdata, Inc. v. Flowdata, 154 F.3d 1345 (7th Cir. 1998) (recognizes Merriam within privity framework)
Reich v. Sea Sprite Boat Co., 50 F.3d 413 (5th Cir. 1995) (presidents/shareholders bound when identified with enjoined entity)
Golden State Bottling Co. v. N.L.R.B., 414 U.S. 168 (U.S. 1973) (privity/successors in interest accept injunctive liability)
Walling v. James V. Reuter, Inc., 321 U.S. 671 (U.S. 1944) (principles of successors in interest and privity in injunctive context)