## Facts

- Cancer Research Institute, Inc. (CRI) is a nonprofit fundraiser for cancer-immunology research with national solicitation efforts.
- Cancer Research Society, Inc. (CRS), a California nonprofit, solicited charitable contributions using the name “Cancer Research Society.”
- A prior judgment permanently enjoined CRS from using “Cancer Research Society” or any confusingly similar name, including listing or advertising itself under that name in any U.S. telephone directory.
- The injunction required CRS, by June 1, 1988, to notify all relevant directory publishers to remove prohibited listings from future directories and to withdraw them where still preventable.
- CRS retained an advertising agency (AAM) to send cancellation notices and assumed the agency would complete the required steps.
- AAM sent cancellation notices to roughly 150 directory publishers, but many notices were sent months after the court-imposed deadline; some directories received no formal cancellation notice.
- CRI identified multiple post-injunction directory listings under “Cancer Research Society,” ultimately alleging a large number of continuing violations.
- CRI moved to hold CRS in civil contempt, seeking compensatory sanctions and attorney’s fees and costs; CRS argued it substantially attempted compliance and that any violations were inadvertent, and contested proof of damages.

## Issues

1. Whether CRS violated a clear and unambiguous injunction, by clear and convincing evidence, through continued telephone-directory listings under the prohibited name.
2. If civil contempt was established, what remedial relief was appropriate, including whether compensatory sanctions required precise proof of actual loss.
3. Whether CRS’s conduct justified an award of attorney’s fees and costs in civil contempt.

## Decision

- The court found CRS in civil contempt for failing to comply with the injunction’s directory-listing removal and prevention requirements.
- The court ordered the parties to conduct discovery on damages to determine whether, and in what amount, compensatory sanctions were warranted.
- The court denied CRI’s request for attorney’s fees and costs, finding the record did not support fee-shifting for willful or bad-faith disobedience.

## Legal Principles

- Civil contempt requires a clear and unambiguous court order, the contemnor’s knowledge of the order, and noncompliance proved by clear and convincing evidence.
- A party subject to an injunction remains responsible for compliance even when tasks are delegated to an agent; inadequate supervision and verification can constitute noncompliance.
- Civil contempt sanctions are remedial and may be coercive or compensatory; compensatory awards may be based on reasonable approximations when exact quantification is difficult.
- Attorney’s fees in civil contempt generally require willful or bad-faith disobedience; negligence or inadequate diligence, standing alone, may not warrant fee-shifting.

## Conclusion

The court held that CRS’s failure to ensure timely, complete removal of prohibited telephone-directory listings violated a clear injunction and warranted civil contempt; it allowed further proceedings to develop proof of compensatory harm but declined to shift attorney’s fees absent sufficient evidence of willful bad faith.


Cancer Rsch. Inst., Inc. v. Cancer Rsch. Soc’y, Inc., 744 F. Supp. 526 (S.D.N.Y. 1990)