Case Name: OG INTERNATIONAL, LTD. and O-Games, USA, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. UBISOFT, INC. and Ubisoft Entertainment S.A., Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-02-22
Citations: 468 F. App'x 787
Docket Number: No. 11-17657
Parties: OG INTERNATIONAL, LTD. and O-Games, USA, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. UBISOFT, INC. and Ubisoft Entertainment S.A., Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 468
Pages: 787–787

Head Matter:
OG INTERNATIONAL, LTD. and O-Games, USA, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. UBISOFT, INC. and Ubisoft Entertainment S.A., Defendants-Appellants.
No. 11-17657.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
Filed Feb. 22, 2012.
Jennifer Co, Peter E. Root, Esquire, Taryn Lam, Kaye Scholer LLP, Palo Alto, CA, William Sloan Coats, III, Esquire, Managing Senior Counsel, Kaye Scholer LLP, Menlo Park, CA, for Plaintiffs-Ap-pellees.
Eric A. Buresh, Paul R. Hart, Michelle Lyons Marriott, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP, Kansas City, MO, Andrew L. Chang, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellants.
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
This appeal from the district court's order denying appellants' motion for a preliminary injunction comes to us for review under Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we affirm.
We express no view on the merits of the complaint. See Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press Int'l, Inc., 686 F.2d 750, 752-53 (9th Cir.1982). Our sole inquiry is whether the district court abused its discretion in denying preliminary injunctive relief. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 129 S.Ct. 365, 374, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008). Here, the district court correctly identified the legal standards for copyright and trade dress infringement. See Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entm't, Inc., 616 F.3d 904, 913-14 (9th Cir.2010); Clicks Billiards, Inc. v. Sixshooters, Inc., 251 F.3d 1252, 1258 (9th Cir.2001); AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348-49 (9th Cir.1979).
We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that appellants failed to meet the requirements to merit preliminary injunctive relief. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's denial of appellants' motion for a preliminary injunction.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.