that the recipients of the devices used the devices for their intended purpose — to receive unauthorized cable service offered on the plaintiffs system. Id. at 460. Similarly, the district court in DIRECTV Inc. v. McCool, 339 F.Supp.2d 1025, 1033 (M.D.Tenn.2004), found that a factual dispute existed for trial where defendant denied that he purchased and used an un-looper device, and plaintiffs evidence of unlawful interception of DIRECTV’s satellite signal, “albeit circumstantial,” showed “that an order was placed for the unlooper by someone using Defendant’s credit card and e-mail address, and that the unlooper was shipped to Defendant’s residential address.” Id. at 1034; see also DirectTV, Inc. v. Griepsma, No. 03-CV-6243-CJS-JWF, 2005 WL 608250 at *7 (W.D.N.Y. March 11, 2005)(<HOLDING>). A genuine issue of material fact clearly
holding that fraud may be inferred from circumstantial evidence holding that although there was no direct evidence of use of an unlooper by the defendant use could be inferred from the purchase and delivery of the unlooper to the defendant holding that the use of a corset spring device was public although the use was by its nature not visible to the general public holding that no fiduciary duty existed between the plaintiff and defendant because there was no evidence that the parties agreed that defendant would be acting primarily for the benefit of the plaintiffs holding that direct proof of intent to defraud is unnecessary and that it may be inferred from the act of the parties and from all circumstances