
    GUINNESS UNITED DISTILLERS & VINTNERS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
    Docket No. 02-7804.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Nov. 5, 2002.
    Peter E. Moll, Jerold J. Ganzfried, Mark I. Levy, Howrey Simon Arnold & White, LLP, Washington, DC, Parker H. Bagley, Andrew Tomback, of counsel, Milbank Tweed Hadley & McLoy LLP, New York, NY, for Appellant.
    Brendan J. O’Rourke, Kevin J. Perra, Robert J. Eddington, Proskauer Rose LLP, New York, NY, for Appellee.
    Present WINTER, CABRANES, Circuit Judges, and JONES, District Judge.
    
      
      
         Of the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

The defendant-appellee, AnheuserBusch, Inc. (“Anheuser-Busch”), challenges on appeal the grant by the District Court of a preliminary injunction pending trial to Guinness United Distillers & Vintners (“Guinness”) on Guinness’s claim of trademark infringement, enjoining Anheuser-Busch from marketing a product under a name that Guinness claims infringes on one of its marks. We review the grant of a preliminary injunction, including a preliminary injunction granted on Lanham Act claims, for abuse of discretion. TCPIP Holding Co., Inc. v. Haar Communications, Inc., 244 F.3d 88, 92 (2d Cir. 2001).

The defendant-appellee did not show that the District Court abused its discretion in issuing the preliminary injunction. The judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.  