
    LIFESCAN, INC.; Johnson & Johnson, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. SHASTA TECHNOLOGIES, LLC; Conductive Technologies, Inc.; Pharmatech Solutions, Inc.; Decision Diagnostics, Corp., Defendants-Appellants.
    No. 13-16042.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Dec. 3, 2013.
    Filed Jan. 08, 2014.
    Gregory Diskant, Catherine A. Williams, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, New York, NY, Richard Blair Goetz, O’Melveny & Myers, Los Angeles, CA, Susan Roeder, Counsel, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, Menlo Park, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
    Robert P. Andris, II, Esquire, Lael D. Andara, Esquire, Ropers, Majeski, Kohn & Bentley, Redwood City, CA, John Shaef-fer, Jeffrey H. Grant, Carole Enid Handler, Esquire, Lathrop & Gage LLP, Los Angeles, CA, William A. Rudy, Esquire, Litigation Counsel, Lathrop & Gage LLP, Kansas City, MO, for Defendants-Appellants.
    Before: TROTT, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Defendants appeal the district court’s order granting plaintiffs’ request for preliminary injunctive relief, enjoining defendants from using images of plaintiffs’ products on defendants’ Shasta GenStrip packaging and in its advertising. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we affirm.

Our sole inquiry is whether the district court abused its discretion in granting preliminary injunctive relief, and we conclude that the district court properly exercised its discretion. Winter v. Natural Res. Def Council 555 U.S. 7, 24, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008) (listing factors for district court to consider); Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press Int’l, Inc., 686 F.2d 750, 752-53 (9th Cir.1982) (explaining limited scope of review).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     