Trial Lawyers College v. Gerry Spences Trial Lawyers ( 2022 )

Appellate Case: 20-8038 Document: 010110637712 Date Filed: 01/27/2022 Page: 1
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
January 27, 2022
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Christopher M. Wolpert
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
_________________________________
THE TRIAL LAWYERS COLLEGE,
a nonprofit corporation,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
No. 20-8038
v.
GERRY SPENCE TRIAL
LAWYERS COLLEGE AT
THUNDERHEAD RANCH, a
nonprofit corporation; GERRY L.
SPENCE; JOHN ZELBST; REX
PARRIS; JOSEPH H. LOW; KENT
SPENCE,
Defendants - Appellants.
_________________________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING
(D.C. No. 1:20-CV-00080-JMC)
_________________________________
Timothy Getzoff, Holland & Hart LLP, Boulder, Colorado (Bradley T.
Cave, P.C. and Jeffrey S. Pope, Holland & Hart LLP, Cheyenne, Wyoming,
with him on the briefs), for Defendants-Appellants.
Christopher K. Ralston, Phelps Dunbar LLP, New Orleans, Louisiana
(Lindsay Calhoun and James Gilbert with him on the briefs), for Plaintiff-
Appellee.
_________________________________
Before BACHARACH, BRISCOE, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
BACHARACH, Circuit Judge.
Appellate Case: 20-8038 Document: 010110637712 Date Filed: 01/27/2022 Page: 2
_________________________________
This appeal grew out of a dispute over a program (called “The Trial
Lawyers College”) to train trial lawyers. The College’s board of directors
splintered into two factions, known as the “Spence Group” and the “Sloan
Group.” The two groups sued each other: The Spence Group sued in state
court for dissolution of the College and a declaratory judgment recognizing
the Spence Group’s control of the Board; the Sloan Group then sued in
federal court, claiming trademark infringement under the Lanham Act.
Both groups sought relief in the federal case. The Spence Group
requested a stay, hoping to obtain a ruling in state court before the federal
case proceeded. The Sloan Group requested a preliminary injunction.
The federal district court decided both requests in favor of the Sloan
Group: The court denied the Spence Group’s request for a stay and granted
the Sloan Group’s request for a preliminary injunction. The Spence Group
appealed both rulings.
We lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of a stay.
After the Spence Group appealed the federal district court’s ruling, the
state court resolved the dispute over Board control. So this part of the
requested stay became moot. The remainder of the federal district court’s
ruling on a stay does not constitute a reviewable final order.
But we do have jurisdiction to review the grant of a preliminary
injunction. In granting the preliminary injunction, the district court found
2
Appellate Case: 20-8038 Document: 010110637712 Date Filed: 01/27/2022 Page: 3
irreparable injury, restricting what the Spence Group could say about its
own training program and ordering removal of sculptures bearing the
College’s logo.
The Spence Group challenges the finding of irreparable harm, the
scope of the preliminary injunction, and the consideration of additional
evidence after the evidentiary hearing. In our view, the district court had
the discretion to consider the new evidence and grant a preliminary
injunction. But the court went too far by requiring the Spence Group to
remove the sculptures.
I. We lack jurisdiction over the denial of a stay.
The Spence Group moved to stay the federal proceedings until the
state court’s issuance of a decision. The federal district court denied the
motion, and the state court issued a partial decision. We lack jurisdiction
to consider the federal district court’s denial of a stay.
A. The state court resolved the issue of Board control, mooting
this part of the appeal.
In the state-court action, the Spence Group requested the removal of
two board members aligned with the Sloan Group. After making this
request, the Spence Group asked the federal district court to postpone any
substantive rulings until the state court decided who controlled the Board.
During the pendency of our appeal, the state court rejected the
Spence Group’s request for removal of the two board members, concluding
3
Appellate Case: 20-8038 Document: 010110637712 Date Filed: 01/27/2022 Page: 4
that they had been validly elected. This conclusion effectively left the
Sloan Group in control of the Board, mooting this part of the requested
stay. See Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Bureau of Reclamation, 601 F.3d
1096, 1109–10 (10th Cir. 2010). 1
B. We also lack jurisdiction to consider the requested stay
while the state court considers the Spence Group’s request
for dissolution.
In state court, the Spence Group also requested dissolution of the
College, claiming misconduct, loss of assets, and inability to carry out the
College’s stated purposes. The state court has not ruled on the request for
dissolution, so our appeal isn’t moot for this part of the requested stay. We
nonetheless lack jurisdiction in the absence of a final order.
We typically obtain appellate review by the entry of a final order.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1291. An order is typically considered “final” if
 it ends the litigation on the merits and
 the court’s only remaining obligation is to execute the
judgment.
Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 275
(1988). The denial of a stay would not end the litigation on the merits, so
the ruling would not ordinarily be considered “final.” Id. at 277–78.
1
The Spence Group has not requested a stay to allow an appeal of the
state court’s ruling.
4
Appellate Case: 20-8038 Document: 010110637712 Date Filed: 01/27/2022 Page: 5
But when parts of the case would remain, we can consider some
decisions “final” under the collateral-order doctrine and the practical
construction rule. See Digit. Equip. Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U.S.
863, 867 (1994) (stating that under the collateral-order doctrine, a decision
that doesn’t terminate the action can be considered “final” when required
by “the interest of ‘achieving a healthy legal system’”) (quoting
Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U.S. 323, 326 (1940)); W. Energy All. v.
Salazar, 709 F.3d 1040, 1049 (10th Cir. 2013) (stating that courts could
alternatively construe a ruling as final based on practical considerations).
Under the collateral-order doctrine, rulings are deemed final if they
 are conclusive,
 resolve important questions completely separate from the
merits, and
 are otherwise unreviewable after entry of a final judgment.
See Digital Equip. Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U.S. 863, 867 (1994).
The Spence Group invokes this doctrine, but it doesn’t apply.
The Spence Group based its motion for a stay on Colorado River
Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976), which
permits a federal court to stay its case while a parallel state case proceeds.
Fox v. Maulding, 16 F.3d 1079, 1081 (10th Cir. 1994). But a stay of the
federal case would not constitute a conclusive ruling. As a result, the
Supreme Court has concluded that the denial of a stay under Colorado
5
Appellate Case: 20-8038 Document: 010110637712 Date Filed: 01/27/2022 Page: 6
River is “inherently tentative” and not considered “final” for purposes of
appellate review. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485
U.S. 271, 278 (1988). The tentative nature of the district court’s ruling
prevents application of the collateral-order doctrine.
The Spence Group tries to distinguish this conclusion, arguing that
the federal district court conclusively determined that the federal and state
cases were not parallel. But we decide appealability based on the category
of the order rather than the particular facts of the case. Los Lobos
Renewable Power, LLC v. Americulture, Inc., 885 F.3d 659, 664 (10th Cir.
2018). Because the Supreme Court categorically refused to apply the
collateral-order doctrine to the denial of stays under Colorado River, the
district court’s ruling doesn’t trigger the collateral-order doctrine.
Even when the collateral-order doctrine doesn’t apply, the practical
construction doctrine sometimes triggers appellate jurisdiction based on a
practical construction of “finality.” State of Utah ex rel Utah State Dep’t
of Health v. Kennecott Corp., 14 F.3d 1489, 1495–96 (10th Cir. 1994). The
Tenth Circuit has construed the doctrine narrowly, applying it “only in the
most exceptional circumstances.” Quinn v. CGR, 828 F.2d 1463, 1467
(10th Cir. 1987). To determine the applicability of the practical
construction doctrine, we consider whether the issue is so “urgent” and
“important” that “the danger of injustice by delaying appellate review
6
Appellate Case: 20-8038 Document: 010110637712 Date Filed: 01/27/2022 Page: 7
outweighs the inconvenience and costs of piecemeal review.” Bender v.
Clark, 744 F.2d 1424, 1427 (10th Cir. 1984).
The denial of a stay does not trigger this narrow exception.
Piecemeal litigation is unlikely because the state court has already decided
the issue of Board control, and the Spence Group doesn’t identify an
unsettled issue of unique urgency. So appellate jurisdiction doesn’t arise
under the practical construction doctrine.
C. We can’t exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction.
In rare circumstances, the doctrine of “pendent appellate
jurisdiction” allows us to exercise jurisdiction over rulings that would
ordinarily be unreviewable until the end of the case. Timpanogos Tribe v.
Conway, 286 F.3d 1195, 1200 (10th Cir. 2002). We can exercise pendent
appellate jurisdiction only when
 an unappealable decision is “inextricably intertwined” with an
appealable ruling or
 “meaningful review of the appealable” decision would require
review of the otherwise unappealable decision.
Id. (quoting Moore v. City of Wynnewood, 57 F.3d 924, 930 (10th Cir.
1995)). The Spence Group argues that (1) appellate jurisdiction exists over
the grant of a preliminary injunction and (2) the issues involving a stay and
preliminary injunction are intertwined.
7
Appellate Case: 20-8038 Document: 010110637712 Date Filed: 01/27/2022 Page: 8
The Spence Group’s first argument is correct, for we do have
jurisdiction over the Spence Group’s challenge to the grant of a
preliminary injunction. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a). But that ruling isn’t
inextricably intertwined with the denial of a stay. 2
The district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction turned on
likelihood of success on the merits, existence of an irreparable injury,
balancing of harms, and effect on the public interest. The Spence Group
argues that the district court analyzed the likelihood of success by
presuming the Sloan Group’s control over the College and the trademarks,
which were the issues to be decided by the state court. But this alleged
presumption doesn’t matter now: During the pendency of our appeal, the
state court has decided control of the Board. So we can’t exercise pendent
appellate jurisdiction on the dissolution claim.
II. The federal district court had discretion to grant a preliminary
injunction, but erred in requiring removal of sculptures.
The district court granted a preliminary injunction, finding in part
that the Sloan Group had shown irreparable injury. The Spence Group
challenges this finding, the order to remove sculptures, restrictions on
2
The Spence Group argues that the issues are intertwined because its
own opening brief incorporates discussion of the stay when challenging the
grant of a preliminary injunction. But to determine pendent jurisdiction,
we consider whether the district court’s rulings are intertwined—not how
the parties structure their appellate arguments.
8
Appellate Case: 20-8038 Document: 010110637712 Date Filed: 01/27/2022 Page: 9
what the Spence Group could say, and the consideration of evidence
presented after the hearing had ended.
In reviewing the grant of a preliminary injunction, we apply the
abuse-of-discretion standard. Wyandotte Nation v. Sebelius, 443 F.3d 1247,
1252 (10th Cir. 2006). A district court abuses its discretion when its
“decision is premised on an erroneous conclusion of law or where there is
no rational basis in the evidence for the ruling.” First W. Cap. Mgmt. Co.
v. Malamed, 874 F.3d 1136, 1140 (10th Cir. 2017) (quoting Awad v. Ziriax,
670 F.3d 1111, 1125 (10th Cir. 2012)). Applying this standard, we
conclude that the district court erred in ordering the removal of sculptures.
But we reject the Spence Group’s other challenges to the preliminary
injunction.
A. The district court did not abuse its discretion by finding
irreparable injury.
The Spence Group challenges the finding of irreparable injury,
arguing that the district court erroneously relied on evidence of alumni
inquiries and monetary loss. We apply the clear-error standard to the
district court’s factual findings and conduct de novo review over the
court’s legal conclusions. Att’y Gen. of Okla. v. Tyson Foods, Inc.,
565 F.3d 769, 776 (10th Cir. 2009). The district court did not legally err or
abuse its discretion in finding irreparable harm.
9
Appellate Case: 20-8038 Document: 010110637712 Date Filed: 01/27/2022 Page: 10
1. There was no presumption of irreparable injury at the time
of the district court’s decision.
The Sloan Group argues that courts should presume irreparable injury
whenever a plaintiff establishes trademark infringement. We disagree.
Granted, we have sometimes referred to a presumption of irreparable injury
in similar circumstances. See, e.g., Hutchinson v. Pfeil, 211 F.3d 515, 522
(10th Cir. 2000) (stating that injury may be presumed when a party made
“literally false or demonstrably deceptive” representations); SCFC ILC,
Inc. v. Visa USA, Inc., 936 F.2d 1096, 1100–01 (10th Cir. 1991) (noting
that injury may be presumed when a trademark is wrongfully appropriated),
overruled in part on other grounds by O Centro Espirita Beneficiente
Uniao Do Vegetal v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 973 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per
curiam), aff’d & remanded sub nom. Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita
Beneficente Uniiao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006); Amoco Oil Co. v.
Rainbow Snow, Inc., 809 F.2d 656, 664 (10th Cir. 1987) (stating that injury
may be presumed from a likelihood of confusion between trademarks).
But in 2006, the Supreme Court cautioned against categorical rules
that would undermine the traditional four-part test for preliminary
injunctions in cases involving intellectual property. eBay Inc. v.
MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388, 393–94 (2006). This caution led four
circuit courts to abrogate their precedents allowing a presumption of
irreparable injury in cases involving copyright infringement. TD Bank N.A.
10
Appellate Case: 20-8038 Document: 010110637712 Date Filed: 01/27/2022 Page: 11
v. Hill, 928 F.3d 259, 279 (3d Cir. 2019); Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Mfg.
Corp, 659 F.3d 1142, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Perfect 10, Inc. v. Google,
Inc., 653 F.3d 976, 980–81 (9th Cir. 2011); Salinger v. Colting, 607 F.3d
68, 76–78 (2d Cir. 2010). Two circuits relied on the Supreme Court’s
cautionary statement in abrogating their precedents allowing a presumption
of irreparable injury in cases involving trademark infringement under the
Lanham Act. Ferring Pharm., Inc. v. Watson Pharm., Inc., 765 F.3d 205,
215 (3d Cir. 2014); Herb Reed Enters., LLC v. Fla. Ent. Mgmt, Inc., 736
F.3d 1239, 1249 (9th Cir. 2013). More broadly, we have held that “later
Supreme Court cases” allow a presumption of irreparable injury only when
the underlying statute “mandate[s] injunctive relief.” First W. Mgmt.. Co.
v. Malamed, 874 F.3d 1136, 1143 (10th Cir. 2017).
After the district court ruled, Congress amended the Lanham Act to
expressly allow a presumption of irreparable injury when the owner of a
trademark proves likelihood of success on the merits. Trademark
Modernization Act of 2020, Pub. L. 116-260, § 226(a), 134 Stat. 2200,
2208 (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a) (2020)). But no such presumption
existed when the district court granted a preliminary injunction because the
statute at that time didn’t mandate an injunction as a remedy. See
15 U.S.C. § 1116(a) (2019) (stating only that courts have the “power to
grant injunctions”). So we cannot presume irreparable injury based on a
11
Appellate Case: 20-8038 Document: 010110637712 Date Filed: 01/27/2022 Page: 12
likelihood of trademark infringement. Without any presumption, the Sloan
Group had to show irreparable injury.
2. Even without a presumption, injury to the College’s
reputation and goodwill could be considered “irreparable.”
For irreparable injury, the Sloan Group had to prove a significant
risk of harm that couldn’t “be compensated after the fact.” DTC Energy
Grp., Inc. v. Hirschfeld, 912 F.3d 1263, 1270 (10th Cir. 2018) (quoting
First W. Cap. Mgmt. Co., 874 F.3d 1136, 1141 (10th Cir. 2017)). To assess
the significance of that risk, we may consider “the difficulty in calculating
damages, the loss of a unique product, and existence of intangible harms
such as loss of goodwill or competitive market position.” Dominion Video
Satellite, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 356 F.3d 1256, 1264 (10th Cir.
2004).
The Spence Group argues that without a presumption, the Sloan
Group didn’t prove irreparable injury. In our view, however, the evidence
permitted a reasonable factfinder to infer irreparable injury.
Though a rebuttable presumption didn’t exist, its underlying logic
could bear on the existence of irreparable injury. 3 See Groupe SEB USA,
Inc. v. Euro-Pro Operating LLC, 774 F.3d 192, 205 n.8 (3d Cir. 2014)
(“Although we no longer apply a presumption [of irreparable injury], the
3
The presumption was simply an evidentiary rule that would serve to
fill an evidentiary gap. See Ortiz v. McDonough, 6 F.4th 1267, 1281 (Fed.
Cir. 2021).
12
Appellate Case: 20-8038 Document: 010110637712 Date Filed: 01/27/2022 Page: 13
logic underlying the presumption can, and does, inform how we exercise
our equitable discretion in this particular case.”); adidas Am., Inc. v.
Skechers USA, Inc., 890 F.3d 747, 763 (9th Cir. 2018) (Clifton, J.,
concurring) (stating that the logic of the presumption informs the
determination of irreparable injury even though the presumption itself no
longer applies). That logic involves the difficulties in
 distinguishing between the services of the trademark owner and
the services of a competitor and
 quantifying the damage from consumer confusion.
5 J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition
§ 30:46 (5th ed. 2021); see Societe Des Produits Nestle, S.A. v. Casa
Helvetia, Inc., 982 F.2d 633, 640 (1st Cir. 1992).
3. The district court could reasonably find irreparable harm to
the College’s reputation and goodwill.
Based on these difficulties, the district court could reasonably find
irreparable injury from
 the College’s efforts to protect its name and logo as trademarks
and
 evidence of likely confusion among customers of the College.
The Sloan Group presented testimony of its efforts to differentiate
the College from competitors. These efforts include registration of
trademarks, investment in branded merchandise, and restrictions on use of
the College’s name when alumni give presentations.
13
Appellate Case: 20-8038 Document: 010110637712 Date Filed: 01/27/2022 Page: 14
On top of these steps to protect its trademarks, the Sloan Group
presented evidence of likely confusion from the Spence Group’s statements
and advertisements. These statements and advertisements included
 a YouTube video, where the Spence Group referred to its own
program as the “Trial Lawyers College” and displayed the
College’s trademarks, and
 mass emails from the Spence Group to individuals on the
College’s mailing list, 4 identifying members of the Spence
Group as the “Directors” of the College and using a misleading
signature that incorporates the College’s name.
The Sloan Group pointed to five facts suggesting that the likelihood
of confusion was ongoing:
1. The “GerrySpenceTrialLawyersCollege@Thunderhead Ranch”
listserv remained active.
2. The YouTube video remained available.
3. The ranch owned by the Spence Group continued to bear the
name “Trial Lawyers College.”
4. The Spence Group continued to publicly promote a presentation
made by a member of its group, which identified the member as
“TLC’s director of curriculum and staff training.”
5. The Spence Group used Instagram for a post that incorporated
the College’s logo and the hashtag “#triallawyerscollege.”
Appellants’ App’x, vol. 1, at 245.
4
The Sloan Group argues that its mailing list is akin to a customer
list.
14
Appellate Case: 20-8038 Document: 010110637712 Date Filed: 01/27/2022 Page: 15
Taken as a whole, the evidence provided reasonable support for the
finding of a risk to the College’s reputation and goodwill. As the Spence
Group argues, those risks could result at least partially from the loss of
valuable board members and the suspension of in-person programming
because of a global pandemic. The influence of those contributing causes
could make it difficult for the Sloan Group to quantify its harm from the
likelihood of confusion. See Med. Shoppe Int’l, Inc. v. S.B.S. Pill Dr., Inc.,
336 F.3d 801, 805 (8th Cir. 2003) (“Harm to reputation and goodwill is
difficult, if not impossible, to quantify in terms of dollars.”); Am. Hosp.
Supply Corp. v. Hosp. Prods. Ltd., 780 F.2d 589, 611 (7th Cir. 1986)
(stating that damages could not adequately compensate the plaintiffs in
part because the injury to their reputations and goodwill were “extremely
difficult to calculate” (citing Roland Mach. Co. v. Dresser Indus., 749 F.2d
380, 386 (7th Cir. 1984)). That difficulty could render the harm
irreparable. See Ross-Simons of Warwick, Inc. v. Baccarat, Inc., 217 F.3d
8, 13–14 (1st Cir. 2000). 5 So the district court did not abuse its discretion
in finding irreparable harm.
4. The Spence Group erroneously relies on a reference to a
drop in donations and a failure to prove actual confusion.
5
The Spence Group also argues that some alumni might rejoin the
College when the dispute is resolved. But the district court could
reasonably find an unquantifiable loss of goodwill from continued
confusion among viewers of the Spence Group’s emails and YouTube
presentation.
15
Appellate Case: 20-8038 Document: 010110637712 Date Filed: 01/27/2022 Page: 16
The Spence Group points out that the district court referred to a drop
in donations to the College and evidence of alumni inquiries to the Sloan
Group. Based on these references, the Spence Group argues that
 a quantifiable drop in donations is “reparable” through
monetary damages and
 the mere existence of questions cannot provide the sole
evidence of actual confusion.
But even if we credit these arguments, they would not prevent a finding of
irreparable injury.
The Spence Group argues that the injury here was quantifiable
because the district court referred to a 10% dip in donations. There are two
possible ways to interpret the district court’s reference to a 10% dip in
donations: (1) as direct evidence of irreparable injury or (2) as evidence
that the Spence Group’s confusing statements and advertisements have
undermined the distinctiveness of the College’s trademarks.
When a court’s explanation can be read one of two ways, we don’t
typically choose the reading that would require reversal. See Mackey v.
Stanton, 586 F.2d 1126, 1129–30 (7th Cir. 1978) (presuming that the
district court intended its order to comply with governing law when the
order could be interpreted in two ways). We thus interpret the district
court’s reference as simply an observation that the Spence Group’s
statements and advertisements had already started to undermine the
distinctiveness of the College’s trademarks.
16
Appellate Case: 20-8038 Document: 010110637712 Date Filed: 01/27/2022 Page: 17
Given this interpretation of the ruling, we must decide whether it fell
within the district court’s discretion. See p. 9, above. We recognize that
“[d]istrict courts have broad discretion to evaluate the irreparability of
alleged harm . . . .” Wagner v. Taylor, 836 F.2d 566, 575–76 (D.C. Cir.
1987). The court had to exercise this discretion when confronted with
evidence of the College’s economic losses. Some of these losses were
quantifiable, such as the 10% dip in donations. But some of these economic
losses involved intangible losses, like harm to the College’s reputation and
goodwill. 6 Those harms could defy easy measurement. Medicine Shoppe
Int’l, Inc. v. S.B.S. Pill Dr., Inc., 336 F.3d 801, 805 (8th Cir. 2003);
K-Mart Corp. v. Oriental Plaza, Inc., 875 F.2d 907, 915 (1st Cir. 1989). So
the district court could reasonably view these harms as irreparable. See
Ross-Simons of Warwick, Inc. v. Baccarat, Inc., 217 F.3d 8, 13 (1st Cir.
2000).
The Spence Group argues that the Sloan Group didn’t prove actual
confusion by presenting evidence of alumni inquiries because
 inquiries from alumni could not constitute actual confusion,
 the alumni were not customers of the College,
 any alumni confusion had been dispelled, and
6
The Spence Group observes that the Sloan Group failed to prove that
the donations related to the College’s goodwill. But the district court
elsewhere found that the Spence Group’s action had created a risk to the
College’s reputation and goodwill.
17
Appellate Case: 20-8038 Document: 010110637712 Date Filed: 01/27/2022 Page: 18
 the Spence Group had not yet offered the alumni any
commercial services due to the outbreak of a pandemic.
Even without actual confusion, the likelihood of confusion could
contribute to a finding of irreparable injury. See Kraft Foods Grp. Brands
LLC v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., 735 F.3d 735, 741 (7th Cir.
2013) (stating that a likelihood of confusion was enough when coupled
with the risk of “loss of valuable goodwill and control”); Paulsson
Geophysical Servs., Inc. v. Sigmar, 529 F.3d 303, 313 (5th Cir. 2008)
(stating that a likelihood of confusion was enough when coupled with
threats to “potential business” and goodwill). Apart from alumni inquiries,
the Spence Group’s statements and advertisements could confuse customers
about ownership of the College’s trademarks. And with that confusion, the
court could reasonably find a blurring of the College’s distinctiveness from
rival programs like the Spence Group’s. The district court thus acted
within its discretion when finding irreparable injury.
B. The district court didn’t abuse its discretion by considering
additional evidence after the hearing had closed.
The Spence Group also challenges the district court’s consideration
of additional evidence after the evidentiary hearing had ended. We reject
this challenge.
The additional evidence involved the activities of a member of the
Spence Group: Mr. Rex Parris. At the evidentiary hearing, Mr. Parris
18
Appellate Case: 20-8038 Document: 010110637712 Date Filed: 01/27/2022 Page: 19
denied involvement with the Spence Group’s effort to compete with the
College. After the evidentiary hearing ended, however, the Sloan Group
presented an audio recording. In that recording, Mr. Parris had openly
discussed his involvement with the Spence Group’s ongoing activities. The
Spence Group objected, asking in the alternative for an opportunity to
present rebuttal evidence. The district court overruled the objection,
considering the Sloan Group’s audio recording without allowing the
Spence Group to present rebuttal evidence.
In reviewing that ruling, we apply the abuse-of-discretion standard.
Smith v. Rogers Galvanizing Co., 148 F.3d 1196, 1197–98 (10th Cir.
1998). To apply this standard, we consider the timing of the new evidence,
its character, and the potential prejudice to the opposing party. Id. at 1198.
The Sloan Group presented the audio recording almost immediately
after the evidentiary hearing had closed. This recording appeared to
contradict Mr. Parris’s testimony.
The Spence Group also argues that the court should have let Mr.
Parris present additional testimony, explaining what he’d said in the
recording. But the Spence Group didn’t ask the district court to allow
further testimony from Mr. Parris; the Spence Group instead asked, more
generally, for an opportunity “to address [the Sloan Group’s] arguments
and submit additional evidence of their own into the record.” Appellants’
19
Appellate Case: 20-8038 Document: 010110637712 Date Filed: 01/27/2022 Page: 20
App’x, vol. 2, at 284. But the Spence Group didn’t say what else it wanted
to present. 7
In our view, the district court acted within its discretion in
overruling the Spence Group’s objection and in denying the alternative
request to present rebuttal evidence.
C. The district court abused its discretion by ordering the
Spence Group to remove two sculptures.
Though the district court didn’t err in granting a preliminary
injunction, it went too far by requiring the Spence Group to remove two
sculptures. The sculptures appeared at a ranch, owned by a member of the
Spence Group, which the College had previously used for programs. The
sculptures included a logo registered as (1) the cattle brand for the ranch
and (2) the trademark of the College. 8
The threshold issue is how to characterize the order to remove the
sculptures. This characterization could affect the test applicable in district
7
The Spence Group was more specific in its appellate briefs. In its
opening brief, the Spence Group said that Mr. Parris would have explained
“what [had] transpired over the last several months.” Appellants’ Opening
Br. at 32–33. And in its reply brief, the Spence Group said that Mr. Parris
could have explained “the context and meaning of the interview.”
Appellants’ Reply Br. at 16.
8
One of these sculptures hung on the side of a barn; the other hung
above a wooden archway. In opposing a preliminary injunction in district
court, the Spence Group submitted a photograph of the sculpture hanging
on the side of the barn. Based on the photograph, the district court referred
only to this sculpture when explaining the order for a preliminary
injunction. But the order itself went further, extending to any display of
“the artwork depicting the ‘054 Mark.” Appellants’ App’x, vol. 2, at 308.
20
Appellate Case: 20-8038 Document: 010110637712 Date Filed: 01/27/2022 Page: 21
court because the movant’s burden is greater when the requested injunction
is “mandatory” rather than “prohibitory.” Fish v. Kobach, 840 F.3d 710,
723–24 (10th Cir. 2016).
Preliminary injunctions are typically “prohibitory” in the sense that
they prohibit the defendant from doing something. See Schrier v. Univ. of
Co., 427 F.3d 1253, 1260 (10th Cir. 2005) (defining a prohibitory
injunction); Tom Doherty Assocs. v. Saban Ent., Inc., 60 F.3d 27, 34 (2d
Cir. 1995) (stating that preliminary injunctions are typically prohibitory).
Other injunctions are considered “mandatory” when they “affirmatively
require” action. SCFC ILC, Inc. v. Visa USA, Inc., 936 F.2d 1096, 1099
(10th Cir. 1991), overruled on other grounds by O Centro Espirita
Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 973 (10th Cir. 2004)
(en banc) (per curiam), aff’d & remanded sub nom. Gonzales v. O Centro
Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006).
In ordering removal of the sculptures, the district court imposed a
mandatory injunction by affirmatively ordering the Spence Group to take
action. See Little v. Jones, 607 F.3d 1245, 1251 (10th Cir. 2010). The court
could have issued a prohibitory injunction by disallowing training
programs at the ranch as long as the sculptures remained visible to
This language prevents display of either sculpture. Given that language,
the Spence Group has challenged the order as one requiring removal of
both sculptures.
21
Appellate Case: 20-8038 Document: 010110637712 Date Filed: 01/27/2022 Page: 22
attendees. But the court went further by ordering the Spence Group to
remove the sculptures. In requiring affirmative conduct, the court issued an
injunction that was mandatory rather than prohibitory. See Garcia v.
Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733, 740 (9th Cir. 2015) (characterizing an order to
remove content from YouTube as a mandatory injunction because the order
required a party to take action). Because this part of the preliminary
injunction was “mandatory,” the Sloan Group had “to assure that the
exigencies of the case support[ed]” a requirement to remove the sculptures.
O’Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d
973, 975 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam), aff’d and remanded sub
nom. Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546
U.S. 418 (2006).
The district court reasoned that
 the College had given considerable thought to trademarking the
logo and
 the Spence Group had planned to host training programs at the
ranch.
In our view, however, this reasoning did not justify the extraordinary step
of a mandatory injunction.
At the time of the ruling, the Spence Group was not presenting any
training programs at the ranch. The Spence Group attributed the inactivity
to a worldwide pandemic and state-court litigation over control of the
College.
22
Appellate Case: 20-8038 Document: 010110637712 Date Filed: 01/27/2022 Page: 23
On top of this inactivity, the district court could prevent
programming at the ranch while the sculptures remained visible to
customers. This type of prohibitory injunction would have adequately
safeguarded the College’s reputation and goodwill.
Given the inactivity at the ranch and the option to restrict
programming at the ranch, the district court abused its discretion by
ordering removal of the sculptures.
D. The district court did not abuse its discretion in enjoining
the Spence Group from definitively purporting to be
Directors of the College and using words associated with the
College.
The district court also enjoined the Spence Group from
 purporting “definitively to be [the College]’s true Board unless
and until such time as the state court makes a ruling to that
effect” and
 using “linguistic plays on words or various terms associated
with The Trial Lawyers College to create or cause confusion as
to whether [the Spence Group] [is] acting as The Trial Lawyers
College.”
Appellants’ App’x, vol. 2, at 312.
The Spence Group argues that these prohibitions were overly broad
through
 restrictions on speech outside the reach of the Lanham Act,
 extension to an allegedly unrelated issue, and
 one-sided restrictions on the Spence Group.
23
Appellate Case: 20-8038 Document: 010110637712 Date Filed: 01/27/2022 Page: 24
We reject these arguments.
1. These parts of the injunction were prohibitory rather than
mandatory.
The Spence Group characterizes these prohibitions as mandatory
injunctions and urges heightened scrutiny. We disagree because these
prohibitions did not affirmatively require the Spence Group to do anything;
the court simply prohibited the Spence Group from making statements that
could create further confusion.
2. The prohibitions did not capture speech outside the reach of
the Lanham Act.
The Spence Group also characterizes this part of the injunction as a
restriction on speech unrelated to protection of the College’s trademark.
The district court expressly allowed the Spence Group to refer to its
claims involving control of the Board. 9 But the court prohibited the Spence
Group from making statements that could confuse customers of the
College.
These statements fell into two categories. In one category, the
Spence Group couldn’t say that it was the true Board of the College. In the
9
The Spence Group complains that the magistrate judge has treated the
preliminary injunction as a “gag order” and recommended findings of
contempt. But the Spence Group has objected to this recommendation,
denying a violation of the preliminary injunction. See In re Urethane
Antitrust Litig., 768 F.3d 1245, 1252 n.4 (10th Cir. 2014) (stating that we
can take judicial notice of the filings in district court). The district judge
has not ruled on the objection.
24
Appellate Case: 20-8038 Document: 010110637712 Date Filed: 01/27/2022 Page: 25
other category, the Spence Group couldn’t use terminology to suggest that
its training programs were part of the College. For both types of
statements, the district court properly exercised its discretion by imposing
restrictions to prevent confusion over the entity owning the trademarks.
3. The district court’s denial of a stay under Colorado River
does not mean that the prohibitions extend to unrelated
harm.
The Spence Group also challenges the breadth of these prohibitions,
arguing that they address harm unrelated to trademark infringement. For
this challenge, the Spence Group relies on the district court’s denial of a
stay under Colorado River. According to the Spence Group, the district
court could not enjoin statements pertaining to control of the Board
because the ruling on a stay had distinguished between control of the
College and its injury.
But lawsuits may address related harm without triggering the
Colorado River doctrine. In addressing the harm to the Sloan Group, the
court tried to prevent consumer confusion, which lies within the province
of the Lanham Act. See Hetronic Int'l, Inc. v. Hetronic Germany GmbH,
10 F.4th 1016, 1042 (10th Cir. 2021) (noting that the Lanham Act’s “core
purposes” are to “protect[] U.S. consumers from confusion and ‘assure a
trademark’s owner that it will reap the financial and reputational rewards
associated with having a desirable name or product’”) (quoting McBee v.
Delica Co., 417 F.3d 107, 121 (1st Cir. 2005)). The district court’s denial
25
Appellate Case: 20-8038 Document: 010110637712 Date Filed: 01/27/2022 Page: 26
of a stay under Colorado River does not prevent the court from ordering
the Spence Group to refrain from causing confusion among potential
customers. So the district court had discretion to prohibit the Spence
Group from definitively purporting to be directors of the College and using
words associated with the College.
4. The prohibitions were not underinclusive and did not fail to
preserve the status quo.
The Spence Group also characterizes the prohibitions as
underinclusive because they omitted any restrictions on speech by the
Sloan Group. But the Spence Group never asked for an injunction against
the Sloan Group. The court couldn’t err by failing to enjoin the Sloan
Group when no one had asked for such an injunction.
III. Conclusion
We lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of a stay.
But we do have jurisdiction to review the grant of a preliminary injunction.
In granting a preliminary injunction, the court had the discretion to find
irreparable injury, consider the Sloan Group’s additional evidence, and
restrict statements by the Spence Group. But the court erred by ordering
removal of the sculptures.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings as to removal of the
sculptures from the ranch.
26