found on the allegedly counterfeit software or EULA, defendants argue that any infringement they committed was innocent. The summary judgment record does not support defendants’ argument. The record reveals that one of SWC’s own customers, Rosey Sun, found that the product she purchased from SWC appeared so suspicious that she contacted Microsoft. Microsoft’s website and helpline do not purport to provide an exhaustive list of characteristics of a counterfeit product. Defendants assert a right to ignore other indications that the products they deal in are counterfeit, which is not the law. A finding of willfulness does not require actual knowledge, but rather willful blindness. See Hard Rock Cafe Licensing Corp. v. Concession Services, Inc., 955 F.2d 1143, 1148 (7th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). Defendants also dispute Microsoft’s assertion
recognizing that willful blindness is equivalent to actual knowledge under the lanham act holding that a knowing misappropriation may be established by evidence that clearly and convincingly demonstrates that respondent knew the invasion was a likely result of his conduct and that  willful blindness satisfies the requirement of knowledge holding that the statute of limitations for all of plaintiffs eleven causes of action including those brought under lanham act  43a 15 usc  1125a and lanham act  43c 15 usc  1125c is four years holding that a laches defense is precluded under a section of the lanham act providing for cancellation at any time holding that knowledge of the patent is required for willful infringement