Rights of persons
The order regarding point-of-sale
displays and remand for the district court to evaluate and
“mak[e] due provision for the rights of innocent persons,” either
by abandoning this part of the remedial order or by crafting a
new version reflecting the rights of third parties.
Of course, any such remedy the district court imposes on remand can only affect contracts entered after the injunctive order issues.
In addition, we agree with Defendants that the injunction appears to order each Defendant separately to require the same retail store to display substantively identical, but separate, signs. The government concedes that, despite the language of the order, the district court could not have intended to require the burden of multiple duplicative displays at each retail store. We therefore direct the district court, if it concludes that some form of a point-of-sale display injunction is still appropriate after considering the rights of third parties and existing contracts, to clarify that its order does not require duplicative displays.
Of course, any such remedy the district court imposes on remand can only affect contracts entered after the injunctive order issues.
In addition, we agree with Defendants that the injunction appears to order each Defendant separately to require the same retail store to display substantively identical, but separate, signs. The government concedes that, despite the language of the order, the district court could not have intended to require the burden of multiple duplicative displays at each retail store. We therefore direct the district court, if it concludes that some form of a point-of-sale display injunction is still appropriate after considering the rights of third parties and existing contracts, to clarify that its order does not require duplicative displays.
