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.