
    MUNCHKIN, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellee, v. PLAYTEX PRODUCTS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellant.
    No. 11-55630.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Oct. 14, 2011.
    Filed Oct. 26, 2011.
    Robert Cameron Garrison, Lathrop & Gage, LLP, Kansas City, MO, Jeff H. Grant, John Shaeffer, Lathrop & Gage, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Petty Rader, Esquire, Corporation Counsel, Munchkin, Inc., North Hills, CA, for Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellee.
    Nancy J. Felsten, Esquire, Marcia Beth Paul, Esquire, Joanna Summerscales, Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, New York, NY, Carla Veltman, Esquire, Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-eounter-elaimant-Appellant.
    Before: PREGERSON and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIDSON, Senior District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Glen H. Davidson, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for Northern Mississippi, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Playtex Products, LLC appeals the district court’s denial of its request for a preliminary injunction on its literal falsity claim under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. As an initial matter, the district court applied the correct standard in evaluating Playtex Products, LLC’s likelihood of success on the merits. See Southland Sod Farms v. Stover Seed Co., 108 F.3d 1134, 1139 (9th Cir.1997). In conducting its review, the district court found that scientific evidence and expert testimony supported Munchkin, Inc.’s advertising claim and indicated that its test was scientifically reliable. See id. (“To prove that an advertisement claim based on product testing is literally false, a plaintiff must do more than show that the tests supporting the challenged claim are unpersuasive. Rather, the plaintiff must demonstrate that such tests are not sufficiently reliable to permit one to conclude with reasonable certainty that they established the claim made.”) (citations and quotation marks omitted). As such, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Playtex Products, LLC’s request for a preliminary injunction.

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