The Ninth Circuit has ruled that a district court order that the Salt Lake Comic Con and its producers cease discussion over use of the trademark “comic-con” or “comic con” constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint. The San Diego Comic Convention (SDCC) had petitioned the lower court for the order, arguing that the Salt Lake event organizers’ use of the mark resulted in confusion and their discussion of the debate and “tainted” the jury pool. The lower court prohibited the Salt Lake organizers from ‘commenting on “topics that relate to”:(3) Any statement that accuses, suggests, implies, or states that SDCC lied and/or committed fraud (other than in documents to be filed with the Court);(4) Any statement about the genericness of the term comic con (other than in documents to be filed with the Court);(5) Any statement about whether the term comic con is descriptive (other than in documents to be filed with the Court);(6) Any statement about whether SDCC abandoned any trademark rights (other than in documents to be filed with the Court)” and indicated that ” if Petitioners “post, share, publish, or link public documents that relate to this case … they are ORDERED to publicize the documents in full or share a link to the full document,” and may not enhance postings with “any comments, opinions, editorials or conclusions that relate to the foregoing statements that have been deemed suppressed.” Finally, the order requires Petitioners to prominently post a disclaimer describing its requirements on their “website, social media site, and any print or broadcast advertisement or press release that makes reference to San Diego Comic Con or this dispute.” The mandated disclaimer is to state that the district court ‘has ordered that no editorial comments, opinions, or conclusions about the litigation may be made on social media and that no highlights or summaries of the status of the proceedings or the evidence presented will be made on social media.'”The district court entered a sanctions order that prohibited “‘“all references to the pending litigation, except the disclaimer ordered by the Court, on [Petitioners’] websites and social media.’ Further, the district court prohibited Petitioners from re-publishing any publicly available documents about the case, including documents publicly filed in the district court. See September 21, 2017 Hearing Transcript at 108:19-21 (“[N]ow I’m basically saying you post no documents about the issues in the case—no comment, no postings.”). The district court also ordered Petitioners to pay all costs and fees associated with the contempt motion.”The Ninth Circuit ruled that petitioners’ speech “does not constitute a serious and imminent threat to SDCC’s right to a fair trial,” noting that restricting this kind of speech is permissible only when it implicates the likelihood that twelve impartial jurors couldn’t be found to hear the case. The court noted that while the petitioners havea respectable number