Young v. U.S. Ex Rel. Vuitton Et Fils S. A. Et Al.

481 U.S. 787 (1987)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

A settlement of a lawsuit brought in December 1978 between Louis Vuitton, S. A., a French leather goods manufacturer, against D, his wife Sylvia, his son Barry and their family-owned businesses, Karen Bags, Inc., Jade Handbag Co., Inc., and Jak Handbag, Inc was agreed upon. Under the agreement, Ds agreed to pay Vuitton $100,000 in damages, and consented to the entry of a permanent injunction prohibiting them from, inter alia, 'manufacturing, producing, distributing, circulating, selling, offering for sale, advertising, promoting or displaying any product bearing any simulation, reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation' of Vuitton's registered trademark. In early 1983, Vuitton and other companies conducted an undercover 'sting' operation with two former FBI agents. The agents posed as interested in purchasing counterfeit goods. Ds became part of the discussion over an investment in a Haitian factory to manufacture counterfeit Vuitton and Gucci goods. Ds signed documents that described the nature of the factory operation and that provided an estimate of the cost of the counterfeited goods. D delivered some sample counterfeit Vuitton bags to the agents for inspection. Four days later, Vuitton attorney J. Joseph Bainton requested that the District Court appoint him and his colleague Robert P. Devlin as special counsel to prosecute a criminal contempt action for violation of the injunction against infringing Vuitton's trademark. D was asked to deliver 25 counterfeit Vuitton handbags. The court found probable cause to believe that Ds were engaged in conduct contumacious of the court's injunctive order, and appointed Bainton and Devlin to represent the United States in the investigation and prosecution of such activity. The court suggested that Bainton inform the United States Attorney's Office of his appointment and the impending investigation. Bainton did so, offering to make available any tape recordings or other evidence, but the Chief of the Criminal Division of that Office expressed no interest beyond wishing Bainton good luck. Over 100 audio and videotapes were made of meetings and telephone conversations between Ds and investigators. The District Court signed, an order on April 26 directing petitioners to show cause why they and other parties should not be cited for contempt for either violating or aiding and abetting the violation of the court's July 1982 permanent injunction. Two of the defendants subsequently entered guilty pleas. D ultimately was convicted, following a jury trial, of criminal contempt under 18 U.S.C. § 401(3), 2 and the other petitioners were convicted of aiding and abetting that contempt. The trial court denied their post-trial motions. On appeal, Ds argued that the appointment of Bainton and Devlin as special prosecutors violated their right to be prosecuted only by an impartial prosecutor. The court rejected their contention, because supervision of contempt prosecutions by the judge is generally sufficient to prevent the 'danger that the special prosecutor will use the threat of prosecution as a bargaining chip in civil negotiations . . . .' The Supreme Court granted certiorari.