Page:Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc..pdf/1

III. CONCLUSION

The district court properly considered the Dataphase factors and did not abuse its discretion in granting Sprint a prelimi­nary injunction. Sprint is entitled to pres­ervation of the status quo pending a deci­sion on the merits. We affirm the order of the district court.

PERFECT 10, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.

AMAZON.COM, INC., a corporation; A9.Com Inc., a corporation, Defendants–Appellees.

Perfect 10, Inc., a California corporation, Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.

Google Inc., a corporation, Defendant–Appellee.

Perfect 10, Inc., a California corporation, Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

Google Inc., a corporation, Defendant–Appellant.

Perfect 10, Inc., a California corporation, Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.

Google Inc., a corporation, Defendant–Appellee.

Perfect 10, Inc., a California corporation, Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

Google Inc., a corporation, Defendant–Appellant.

Perfect 10, Inc., a California corporation, Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

Google Inc., a corporation, Defendant–Appellant.

Nos. 06–55405, 06–55406, 06–55425, 06–55759, 06–55854, 06–55877.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 15, 2006.

Filed May 16, 2007.

Amended Dec. 3, 2007.