
    DREW ESTATE HOLDING COMPANY LLC, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee, v. FANTASIA DISTRIBUTION, INC., Defendant-Third Party Plaintiff Counter Claimant-Counter Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-15083.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
    Roberta Jacobs-Meadway Bridget Hef-fernan Labutta, Desiree L. Wilfong, Ec-kert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, Philadelphia, PA, Ury Fischer, Lott & Fischer, PL, Coral Gables, FL, for Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee.
    James W. Denison, Fantasia Distribution, Inc., Anaheim, CA, David Oskin, Chicago, IL, Mark Terry, Office of Mark Terry, Esq., Miami, FL, for Defendant-Third Party Plaintiff Counter Claimant-Counter Defendant-Appellant.
    Before MARTIN, JORDAN, and SUHRHEINRICH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Honorable Richard F. Suhrheinrich, United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
    
   JORDAN, Circuit Judge:

In this appeal Fantasia Distribution, Inc. challenges the district court’s award of profits to Drew Estate Holding Company LLC, on its trademark infringement claim under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A). Among other things, Fantasia argues that the district court erred in not holding an evidentiary hearing on Drew Estate’s motion for an award of profits under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). After this appeal was filed, the district court issued an indicative ruling, stating to us that it would hold an evidentiary hearing on profits if the matter were remanded. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 62.1; Fed. R.App. P. 12.1. After having heard oral argument, we believe the best course is to remand the case to the district court to hold the requested evidentiary hearing and then enter a new judgment — whatever that may be — based upon its findings.

Accordingly, the case is remanded to the district court with instructions to hold an evidentiary hearing on the issue of profits and to enter an amended final judgment based upon what transpires at the hearing. This appeal is now closed. Any party may; of course, file a timely appeal from the amended final judgment.

REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. 
      
      . In light of our decision, Fantasia’s pending motion to take judicial notice is denied as moot.
     