the district court did not err in denying Appellants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law. C. Jury Instructions 1. Contributory Trademark Infringement To prevail on its claim of contributory trademark infringement, Louis Vuitton had to establish that Appellants continued to supply its services to one who it knew or had reason to know was engaging in trademark infringement. Inwood Labs., Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 854, 102 S.Ct. 2182, 72 L.Ed.2d 606 (1982). Because Appellants provided services rather than a product, Louis Yuitton also needed to establish that Appellants had “[djirect control and monitoring of the instrumentality used by a third party to infringe” Louis Vuitton’s marks. Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Solutions, Inc., 194 F.3d 980, 984 (9th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Appellants contend that the district court
holding that a defendant exercised control over a firearm that was found in a vehicle he was driving holding that to establish a prima facie case of control person liability a plaintiff must establish that the alleged control person actually participated in ie exercised control over the operations of the primary violator in general internal quotations omitted holding that the court must consider the adequacy of the inquiry into the conflict the extent of the conflict and the timeliness of the motion holding that the supervisory control of the district court may be exercised through its equitable jurisdiction holding that the court must consider the extent of control exercised by the defendant over the third partys means of infringement