CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
MCKEON PRODUCTS, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
HOWARD S. LEIGHT AND ASSOCIATES, INC.,
Defendant,

HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC., as successor-in-interest,
Interested Party-Appellant.
   No. 20-2279
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:95-cv-76322—Paul D. Borman, District Judge.
Argued: June 9, 2021
Decided and Filed: October 8, 2021
Before: NORRIS, KETHLEDGE, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. In 1995, McKeon Products (“McKeon”) sued Howard S. Leight and Associates (“Leight”) over its use of a phonetically identical trademark. Both companies made earplugs. McKeon used the brand name “MACK’S,” and Leight used the brand names “MAX” and “MAX-LITE.”1 The potential for confusion is obvious.

Rather than litigate McKeon’s trademark infringement claims, the parties entered a settlement agreement that the district court approved by consent decree. Their goal was to prevent consumer confusion over the brand names. To achieve that end, Leight agreed not to sell its MAX-brand earplugs into the “Retail Market.” And McKeon agreed that Leight could continue to sell its earplugs in “the Industrial Safety Market and elsewhere, except as expressly agreed.”

But the agreement and the consent decree never contemplated the internet. In 2017, McKeon complained to Honeywell (which now owns Leight) about sales of MAX-brand earplugs on Amazon and other retail websites. McKeon argued that the consent decree prevents Honeywell from selling these earplugs on those sites. Honeywell responded that the consent decree’s definition of the retail market didn’t cover websites. And, in any event, distributors had been selling MAX-brand earplugs on Amazon and similar websites for more than a decade without complaint from McKeon. So laches barred any effort by McKeon to belatedly enforce the consent decree.

Unpersuaded, McKeon moved the district court to enforce the consent decree and end Honeywell’s online retail sales. McKeon won below, where the district court held that laches wasn’t an available defense and that McKeon had the correct interpretation of the consent decree.

Honeywell challenges both determinations. So this appeal poses three questions. Is laches available to Honeywell? If so, does laches bar McKeon’s motion to enforce the consent decree against the allegedly prohibited online sales? And if McKeon’s motion was timely, is its argument that some websites fall into the consent decree’s definition of the retail market correct?

. . .

For the reasons above, we hold that laches is available to Honeywell as an affirmative defense, that it does not apply to these facts, and that McKeon’s interpretation of the consent decree is the better reading. We thus AFFIRM the district court. And we REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion including the dissolution of the stay.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
DAWN CRAWFORD, in her capacity as Administratrix of the Estate of Marc Crawford,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JOHN TILLEY, individually and in his official capacity as Secretary of the Justice & Public Safety Cabinet, et al.,
Defendants,

JAMES ERWIN, individually,
Defendant-Appellant
   No. 20-6391
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Lexington.
No. 5:18-cv-00623—Claria Horn Boom, District Judge.
Argued: July 29, 2021
Decided and Filed: October 8, 2021
Before: GRIFFIN, LARSEN, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. Marc Crawford died in Kentucky’s prisons less than a month after police arrested him. His widow, Dawn Crawford, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on behalf of his estate. She claims multiple state officials and private companies failed to provide Marc with medical treatment while he was in their care.

This appeal is not about the state officials and private companies that directly rendered (or did not render) medical care for Marc while he was in state custody. Instead, it is about defendant James Erwin, then Kentucky’s Acting Commissioner of the Department of Corrections. Dawn’s complaint asserted, under a theory of supervisory liability, that Erwin violated Marc’s Eighth Amendment right to be free from “cruel and unusual punishments.” Erwin moved to dismiss the claim, asserting qualified immunity. Dawn then amended her complaint, and Erwin filed an updated motion to dismiss. The district court rejected Erwin’s qualified immunity defense and denied his motion. Erwin appealed. We REVERSE and REMAND the case with instructions that the district court dismiss the claims against Erwin.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL R. LEMONS,
Defendant-Appellant.
   No. 21-5313
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee at Jackson.
No. 1:08-cr-10102-1—J. Daniel Breen, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: October 8, 2021
Before: BATCHELDER, LARSEN, and READLER, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge. Michael Lemons appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion seeking a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The district court concluded that Lemons failed to demonstrate extraordinary and compelling reasons justifying a sentence reduction. Seeing no abuse of discretion in that determination, we affirm.