What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
In some cases there is some confusion over who should be listed as the appellant and who as the respondent. This confusion is primarily the result of the presence of multiple docket numbers consolidated into a single appeal that is disposed of by a single opinion. Most frequently, this occurs when there are cross appeals and/or when one litigant sued (or was sued by) multiple litigants that were originally filed in district court as separate actions. The coding rule followed in such cases should be to go strictly by the designation provided in the title of the case. The first person listed in the title as the appellant should be coded as the appellant even if they subsequently appeared in a second docket number as the respondent and regardless of who was characterized as the appellant in the opinion.
To clarify the coding conventions, consider the following hypothetical case in which the US Justice Department sues a labor union to strike down a racially discriminatory seniority system and the corporation (siding with the position of its union) simultaneously sues the government to get an injunction to block enforcement of the relevant civil rights law. From a district court decision that consolidated the two suits and declared the seniority system illegal but refused to impose financial penalties on the union, the corporation appeals and the government and union file cross appeals from the decision in the suit brought by the government. Assume the case was listed in the Federal Reporter as follows:
United States of America,
Plaintiff, Appellant
v
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendant, Appellee.
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendants, Cross-appellants
v
United States of America.
Widgets, Inc. & Susan Kuersten Sheehan, President & Chairman
of the Board
Plaintiff, Appellants,
v
United States of America,
Defendant, Appellee.
This case should be coded as follows:Appellant = United States, Respondents = International Brotherhood of Widget Workers Widgets, Inc., Total number of appellants = 1, Number of appellants that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials" = 1, Total number of respondents = 3, Number of respondents that fall into the category "private business and its executives" = 2, Number of respondents that fall into the category "groups and associations" = 1.
Note that if an individual is listed by name, but their appearance in the case is as a government official, then they should be counted as a government rather than as a private person. For example, in the case "Billy Jones & Alfredo Ruiz v Joe Smith" where Smith is a state prisoner who brought a civil rights suit against two of the wardens in the prison (Jones & Ruiz), the following values should be coded: number of appellants that fall into the category "natural persons" =0 and number that fall into the category "state governments, their agencies, and officials" =2. A similar logic should be applied to businesses and associations. Officers of a company or association whose role in the case is as a representative of their company or association should be coded as being a business or association rather than as a natural person. However, employees of a business or a government who are suing their employer should be coded as natural persons. Likewise, employees who are charged with criminal conduct for action that was contrary to the company policies should be considered natural persons.
If the title of a case listed a corporation by name and then listed the names of two individuals that the opinion indicated were top officers of the same corporation as the appellants, then the number of appellants should be coded as three and all three were coded as a business (with the identical detailed code). Similar logic should be applied when government officials or officers of an association were listed by name.
Your specific task is to determine the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the appellant is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.

Opinion:
MIDWEST PLASTICS CORPORATION and Ray Hodge, Appellants, v. PROTECTIVE CLOSURES COMPANY, Inc., Appellee.
No. 6307.
United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.
Nov. 14, 1960.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 16, 1960.
John H. Widdowson, Wichita, Kan. (T. L. O’Hara, Wichita, Kan., was with him on brief), for appellants.
Kenneth R. Sommer, Buffalo, N. Y. (Robert Poulston and Malcolm Miller, Wichita, Kan., were with him on brief), for appellee.
Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, and BRATTON and PICKETT, Circuit Judges.
MURRAH, Chief Judge.
In this diversity suit, the trial court found the appellant-defendants guilty of alleged unfair trade practices, granted injunctive relief and ordered an accounting of the corporate appellant’s attributable profits.
The judgment is based upon specific findings to the effect that by extensive advertising and wide distribution, the plaintiff-appellee acquired a secondary meaning in the source of its “red polyethylene tapered caps and plugs,” also called “closures,” and tradenamed “Tapered Caplugs”; that after these closures had become distinctively identified in the trade as coming from the plaintiff, the corporate defendant, acting under the management and direction of appellant Hodge, commenced to offer for sale, and to sell, a range in sizes of “red polyethylene tapered caps and plugs having a configuration and appearance substantially indistinguishable from and interchangeable with that of plaintiff’s corresponding closure”; that some of the sizes of the corporate defendant’s closures bore the same part numbers as plaintiff’s closures of the same size, and none of defendants’ closures bore any marks identifying the defendant as the source of such closures; that the corporate defendant distributed to the same trade a catalogue of its products, containing substantial amounts of material copied from plaintiff’s trade literature, including part numbers, illustrations in red, dimensions, manner of tabulation and other data and wording either directly or in substance; that in at least one case the corporate defendant purchased through one of its manufacturing agents, and in another case through a fictitious company, quantities of the plaintiff’s products, and resold them to its customers, along with some of its own products. The judgment is based upon the further finding that the designation by the defendants of its product as “Tapercap” or “Plug Cap” in its catalogue, packing slips and invoices, was confusingly similar to plaintiff’s “Tapered Caplugs”; and that these aforesaid acts are “likely to deceive and to confuse purchasers as to the source of defendant’s closures,” and therefore constitute a deceptive combination and evidence a deliberate intention to trade upon plaintiff’s good will, to the defendant’s unjust enrichment and the plaintiff’s detriment.
The appellants do not deny these basic facts, indeed they do not deny that their products are substantially indistinguishable from and interchangeable with appellee’s corresponding product. Their defense rather is in the nature of confession and avoidance, to the effect that the appellee can acquire no secondary meaning in the source of its product; and that they appropriated nothing not already in the public domain or which the law of unfair trade practices will protect. More particularly, they say that the color red which distinguishes the appellee’s product, being basic and generic, is not susceptible of a protectable secondary meaning and moreover, as used in this product is at least partly functional. As to the catalogue simulation, appellants take the position that they did no more than project an industrially standardized description of that which was in the public domain in a manner to best serve the public’s interest in it. They liken these closures to “nails, bolts, nuts, screws, etc.,” which are completely standardized and capable of but one description. And finally they point to the fact of having ceased publishing the copied catalogue and having destroyed all available copies along with the printing plates.
The appellee claims no patent or copyright in the products, rather it bases its claim squarely upon a secondary meaning in the source of the product and a palming off of appellant’s product as that of appellee.
It seems to be now established beyond any doubt that one cannot acquire a secondary meaning in a basic color to identify or distinguish the source of an article of trade. The underlying reason is that basic colors, as well as functional shapes and designs, are generic and necessarily belong to the public. See Norwich Pharmacal Co. v. Sterling, 2 Cir., 271 F.2d 569; 52 Am.Jur., Trademarks § 48, and authorities cited. Even though the color red, or some other basic color, when used in combination with words, letters or figures to form a distinctive nonfunctional symbol or design may be susceptible of a secondary meaning, it cannot be such when, as here, it is used in combination with the structure, shape and design of the article it identifies. Annotation 150 A.L.R. 1111; Radio Corporation of America v. Decca., D.C., 51 F.Supp. 493.
But quite apart from a secondary meaning in a product or article of trade, the law has always forbidden one trader to pass off his article of trade as that of a rival trader. Restatement of Torts, §§ 711, 712; Nims, Law of Unfair Competition and Trademarks, Vol. 1, p. 52; International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215, 39 S.Ct. 68, 63 L.Ed. 211. “Deceit is the basis of an action of this character. The principle underlying unfair trade practice cases is that one manufacturer or vendor is palming off his merchandise as that of another * * * or that he is vending the products of another as his own * * Reynolds & Reynolds v. Norick, 10 Cir., 114 F.2d 278, 281. Since these articles in suit are not protected by copyright, patent or the indicia of a secondary meaning, they belong to the public, and the defendants, or anyone else, are consequently free to make and sell them subject “only the obligation to identify their products in such manner that they will not reasonably be taken for those of plaintiff.” In other words, the defendants are under a duty to mark or designate their products so that “ * * * purchasers exercising ordinary care to discover whose products they are buying will know the truth and not become confused or mistaken.” Id., 114 F.2d at page 281; see also Kellogg Company v. National Biscuit, 305 U.S. 111, 59 S.Ct. 109, 83 L.Ed. 73.
The complete absence of any identifying marks on the defendants’ products, except the stock numbers which tended to identify them as coming from the appellee, coupled with the deliberate and studied copying of appellee’s catalogue, including phonetically similar captions and descriptive illustrations, is entirely sufficient to justify the finding that such acts or omissions are likely to deceive and confuse purchasers as to the source of the defendants’ products, and evidences a deliberate scheme to palm off their goods as those of the plaintiff.
It follows that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree adapted “to the general equities of the particular situation,” J. C. Penney Co. v. H. D. Lee Mercantile Co., 8 Cir., 120 F.2d 949, 958, including restitution for unjust enrichment based upon an accounting of the corporate defendant’s profits during the period of the unfair trade practices. Blue Bell Co. v. Frontier Refining Co., 10 Cir., 213 F.2d 354. We hold therefore that (1) the defendants are free to make and sell the same products made and sold by the plaintiff, subject only to the obligation to identify them in a manner to avoid deceptive similarity; and (2) the plaintiff is entitled to an accounting during the period of unfair competition.
We leave to the trial court the province of fashioning a decree affording injunctive relief and restitution in accordance with these views.
The judgment of the trial court is therefore vacated and the cause remanded for that purpose.
. Tlie article in suit is technically described as a red “closure comprising in its unmounted condition a single polyethylene body having a circular end wall, an enlarging frustoeonical side wall projecting axially from the margin of said end wall and an annular flange projecting radially outwardly from the rim of said side wall.” The articles were designed and used as protective coverings and plugs for threaded pipe, tubing, etc.

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 2