Dominic's Restaurant of Dayton, Inc. v. Mantia
- Citation:
- Nos. 10-3376/3377, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13665 (6th Cir. July 5, 2012)
- Tag(s):
-
- Ruling:
- The decision of the district court was affirmed. A defendant's bankruptcy filing did not stay the district court from ruling on a contempt motion for violation of a temporary restraining order protecting the plaintiffs' marks. The automatic stay protects interests in a debtor's property, not tortious uses of that property by the debtor. If Section 362 were read otherwise, then bankrupt businesses which operated post-petition could violate the plaintiffs' trademark rights with impunity. Therefore, because the contempt motion involved the defendant's use of property to commit a tort (e.g., trademark and service mark infringement), determination of the motion was not stayed by the defendant's bankruptcy.
- Procedural context:
- Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
- Facts:
- The plaintiffs own certain trademarks and service marks related to the creation and operation of a restaurant called "Dominic's." The plaintiffs filed a complaint in federal district court claiming, among other things, trademark infringement by several defendants, related to the defendants' operation and promotion of a different restaurant. The district court issued a temporary restraining order against the defendants, ordering them to refrain from using the plaintiffs' marks.
Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed a motion for contempt, alleging the defendants' were operating their restaurant in violation of the TRO. One of the defendants filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition and a suggestion of bankruptcy in the district court case. Notwithstanding the bankruptcy petition, the district court granted the contempt motion and enjoined all of the defendants from operating their restaurant. The district court concluded that the stay applicable to the debtor-defendant "d[id] not apply to protect a debtor's tortious use of his property." The district court also concluded that, while the stay would bar a determination of damages against the debtor-defendant, it would not bar injunctive relief.
The debtor-defendant filed an appeal, arguing that his bankruptcy stayed the contempt proceedings.
- Judge(s):
- Batchelder, McKeague, and Quist
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign In using your ABI Member credentials. Not a Member yet? Join ABI now - it is absolutely worth it!
