PER CURIAM: This is the second time that the instant case has been before us on appeal. In disposing of the first appeal earlier this year, we affirmed the district court’s partial
summary judgment of October 30, 2009, reversed the portion of that court’s Final Judgment that held the Plaintiff-Appellant’s sale of products bearing Defendant-Appellee’s marks to three independent used car dealers constituted trademark infringement, affirmed the district court’s judgment in all other respects, and remanded the case to that court with instructions to enter judgment for Plaintiff-Appellant on the category of products bearing such marks that Plaintiff-Appellant had sold to three independent used car dealers.
On April 12 of this year, the district court entered a Memorandum on Entry of Amended Final Judgment and an Amended Final Judgment, after which Plaintiff-Appellant filed the instant appeal. In the
summary of its argument contained in its brief filed in the instant appeal, Plaintiff-Appellant expressly acknowledges that “[t]he only issue is the appropriateness of the injunction language in the Amended Final Judgment.” We have reviewed the record on appeal, including the two April 21, 2012 filings of the district court, our earlier opinion remanding the case in part, the briefs filed by the parties in the instant appeal, and all record excerpts.
As a result of our review, we are satisfied that the district court fully and correctly followed our limited remand and that its rulings — including “the injunction language” in its Amended Final Judgment on remand — -are correct, complete, and wholly free of reversible error. Accordingly, the rulings of the district court on remand, including its Amended Final Judgment, are, in all respects, AFFIRMED. Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.