One thing that struck me about the Mongol trademark injunction is that it applied not just to the parties -- there, the criminal defendants and those "in active concert or participation with them" -- but also to the defendants' "family members."

What justification can there be for imposing a speech restriction on someone, or even an order that he surrender property more generally, because he's a "family member[]" -- e.g., sibling, cousin, adult child, parent of an adult child, etc. -- of a criminal defendant? I would think that people's free speech rights or property rights generally can't turn on whom they happen to be related to. (Spouses are a different story, because that's a voluntary legal arrangement; likewise, parents and minor children have mutual legal obligations; but I'm speaking here of other family relationships.)

Perhaps in some situations, such as with antinepotism policies, the government acting as employer may indeed deny people certain benefits (such as a government paycheck). But when it comes to the government acting as sovereign, ordering the seizure of property, or restricting the display of symbols, how can one's relationship with a criminal defendant diminish one's legal rights? On top of that, given that this is a court order, which usually applies only to parties and to those who are indeed acting in concern with the parties, how can someone who isn't before the court be bound by the order just because of the family connection? And, finally, exactly what would "family member[]" mean in such an injunction?

Are such injunctions commonplace (even outside the quite unusual context of the government trying to seize copies of symbols)? Have courts concluded that they may indeed impose legal obligations on "family members" of parties? Has there been some evaluation by appellate courts of whether such obligations are legally permissible? I'd love to see any specific legal authorities on the subject.