to trademark owner and burden to infringer when determining whether product recall is appropriate remedy). Kidz-Med does not dispute the district court’s finding that a recall would require it to contact five retailers and would cost $95,000 to complete. See Tecnimed SRL v. Kidz-Med, Inc., 763 F.Supp.2d at 416. It complains that the district court did not weigh these facts against Kidz-Med’s precarious financial condition. In fact, the record shows that the district court specifically concluded that Kidz-Med should bear the costs despite its imminent insolvency because it had assumed the risk of a recall by intentionally keeping its non-contact thermometers on the market during this litigation’s pendency. See id.-, see also Perfect Fit Indus., Inc. v. Acme Quilting Co., 646 F.2d at 807 (<HOLDING>). 4. Conclusion We have considered Kidz-Med’s
holding that the defendants reference to the plaintiffs trademark in the metatags of the defendants web page was a violation of trademark law holding that defendants intentional acts to infringe plaintiffs trademark supported district courts recall order holding there is no continuing duty to repair or recall holding that the continued use of licensed trademark after termination of franchise agreement constituted trademark infringement and breach of contract holding that the record supported the district courts award of damages