## Facts

- Reno Air Racing Association, Inc. operated the National Championship Air Races at Reno/Stead Airport and marketed the event under names including “Reno Air Races.”
- Reno Air owned two federally registered, incontestable trademarks for a “pylon logo” used in connection with event services and related merchandise.
- Reno Air used controlled vendor licensing for sales of authorized merchandise at the event.
- Jerry McCord, without a license, sold Reno-themed merchandise just outside the event gates, using “Reno Air Races” text and aviation/pylon imagery similar to the event’s branding.
- Reno Air sued under the Lanham Act and obtained an ex parte TRO barring McCord from making items bearing trademarks “similar” or “confusingly similar” to an outside photograph of one of McCord’s shirts.
- McCord stopped selling the shirt shown in the photograph but continued selling other Reno-themed items.
- The district court held McCord in civil contempt for violating the TRO and imposed sanctions.
- After a bench trial, the district court entered judgment for Reno Air on trademark infringement, awarded damages, and issued a permanent injunction.
- McCord appealed both the contempt ruling and the infringement judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the ex parte TRO satisfied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65’s notice and specificity requirements so that it could support a civil contempt finding.
2. Whether McCord’s unlicensed sale of Reno-themed merchandise infringed Reno Air’s registered marks under the Lanham Act, warranting damages and a permanent injunction.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit vacated and reversed the civil contempt finding and sanctions.
- The court held the TRO was improperly issued because it failed Rule 65’s specificity and notice requirements, relying on vague “similar/confusingly similar” language and reference to an external photograph rather than describing prohibited acts in reasonable detail.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s trademark infringement judgment, damages award, and permanent injunction.
- The case was remanded for proceedings consistent with the appellate disposition.

## Legal Principles

- A TRO or injunction must describe restrained or required acts in reasonable detail and may not define prohibited conduct by reference to external documents or vague formulations that force the restrained party to guess at compliance.
- Ex parte TROs are tightly limited because they are issued without notice; they are justified only to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable harm for the time necessary to hold a hearing.
- Civil contempt sanctions cannot rest on an order that does not provide clear, specific notice of what conduct is prohibited.
- In Lanham Act cases, federally registered and incontestable marks are valid and protectable; unauthorized commercial use that is likely to cause confusion as to source, sponsorship, or approval supports liability, damages, and injunctive relief.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit reversed contempt sanctions because the ex parte TRO failed to give clear, Rule 65-compliant notice of prohibited conduct, but it affirmed that McCord’s unlicensed merchandising near the event infringed Reno Air’s protected marks and justified damages and a permanent injunction.


Reno Air Racing Ass’n, Inc. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2006)