Intenze Products, Inc. v. Charm Color Company
- Gregory Woods
- 1:13-cv-08385
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Intenze Products v. Charm Color, Judge Woods denied without prejudice a contempt motion because the defendants had not been notified.
Intenze Products, Inc. and the defendants named in the prior final judgment, who had not appeared in the case.
What happened
In Intenze Products, Inc. v. Charm Color Company, the court had previously entered a default judgment and permanent injunction against the defendants. Intenze Products later asked the court to find the defendants in contempt for allegedly violating that judgment.
The court denied the contempt motion without prejudice because the defendants had not appeared and would not have received notice merely because Intenze Products filed the motion. The court directed Intenze Products to propose an order requiring service of the motion papers and setting deadlines for the defendants to respond.
Judge Gregory H. Woods also said that, if a hearing is scheduled, Intenze Products must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the entities allegedly infringing its intellectual property are the defendants covered by the judgment. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion.
The detailed version
- Intenze Products, Inc. v. Charm Color Company · No. 1:13-cv-08385
- Gregory Woods
- July 1, 2025
Background
On January 8, 2015, the court entered a final default judgment and permanent injunction against the defendants. On April 22, 2025, Intenze Products filed a motion asking the court to find the defendants in contempt for allegedly failing to comply with that judgment.
Ruling on Notice and Service
The court denied Intenze Products’ contempt motion without prejudice. The defendants had not appeared in the case, and filing the motion did not give them notice. The court directed Intenze Products to submit a proposed order to show cause scheduling a hearing, with the hearing date left blank for the court to fill in.
The proposed order must require Intenze Products to serve the order and its motion papers on the defendants in a manner permitted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. Intenze Products must file proof of service within four weeks after the court enters the order. The defendants’ opposition would be due no later than three weeks after service is completed, and Intenze Products’ reply, if any, would be due one week after service of the opposition.
Potential Issues at a Future Hearing
Judge Gregory H. Woods reminded Intenze Products that, if a contempt hearing is scheduled, it will bear the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence, among other things, that the persons and entities allegedly infringing its copyrights and trademarks are the defendants covered by the final judgment. The court noted that the allegedly infringing entities had different names from the defendants named in the judgment.
The court also stated that it would need to determine the appropriate coercive remedy if Intenze Products proves contempt. The order does not decide whether contempt occurred or whether any relief is appropriate. It states that the appropriateness and scope of relief would be determined at or after a hearing, and that there is no guarantee that relief through the contempt motion would exceed or accrue faster than relief potentially available in a separate action against the entities identified in Intenze Products’ papers.
Disposition
The contempt motion was denied without prejudice, and the clerk was directed to terminate the motion pending at Docket Number 49.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.