PENN ENGINEERING & MANUFACTURING CORP. v. PEMCO HARDWARE, INC., 2:15-cv-06277

Penn Engineering holds patents and trademarks for fasteners and obtained a Preliminary Injunction on March 9, 2016, prohibiting Pemco and related parties from using Penn’s marks, selling infringing products, and using confusing domain names.
Penn discovered a new set of entities operating under the name Pinconn and a website www.pinconn.com, which Penn alleges sell the same and additional infringing products.
Penn observed Pinconn exhibiting at the 2017 International Fastener Expo (IFE) in Las Vegas; Penn’s counsel hand-delivered the Preliminary Injunction and pleadings to a Pinconn representative and photographed allegedly infringing materials.
The Court had denied Penn’s motion to formally modify the Preliminary Injunction to name Pinconn, explaining the existing injunction already covered subsidiaries or parties acting in concert and domain names later shown by affidavit.
Penn moved to hold Pinconn in contempt after further evidence that Pinconn planned to exhibit at another trade show (Medical Design & Manufacturing in Minneapolis).
After a hearing, the Court found clear-and-convincing evidence that Pinconn is the same as or acting in concert with Pemco, had knowledge of the injunction, and violated its terms; the Court held Pinconn in contempt.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Pinconn is subject to the March 9, 2016 Preliminary Injunction	Pinconn is the same entity as Pemco or acting in concert and thus covered by the injunction; it used Penn’s marks and sold infringing products.	(Implicit) Pinconn was not named and therefore not specifically bound by the injunction.	Court: Injunction covers Pemco and persons/entities acting in concert, including Pinconn; injunction applied to infringing domains/websites.
Whether Penn proved contempt by clear and convincing evidence	Penn presented evidence of shared identity, infringing website material, trade‑show distribution of infringing products, and delivery of the injunction to Pinconn representatives.	(Implicit) Any ambiguity favors alleged contemnor; ownership/identity distinctions could negate knowledge or coverage.	Court: Elements satisfied — valid order existed, Pinconn had knowledge, and Pinconn disobeyed; held in contempt.
Appropriate procedural remedy for new infringing entities or domains	Penn sought modification to name Pinconn but was advised to seek a contempt finding for parties acting in concert or to present affidavit-verified domains.	(Implicit) Formal modification unnecessary if injunction already broadly covers related actors/domains.	Court: Modification unnecessary; contempt motion was the proper vehicle and was granted against Pinconn.

Michaelson v. United States ex rel. Chi., St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Ry. Co., 266 U.S. 42 (establishing inherent power of courts to punish contempt)
United States v. Baker Funeral Home, Ltd., 196 F. Supp. 3d 530 (E.D. Pa.) (discussing civil contempt’s remedial purpose and burden of proof)
Roe v. Operation Rescue, 919 F.2d 857 (3d Cir.) (civil contempt is remedial and coercive)
Harris v. City of Philadelphia, 47 F.3d 1311 (3d Cir.) (elements required to prove civil contempt)
Robin Woods, Inc. v. Woods, 28 F.3d 396 (3d Cir.) (requirement that contempt be proved by clear and convincing evidence)