Page:Bourne v. Walt Disney (2d Cir. 1995).pdf/13

 sale of videocassettes constituted infringement of Bourne’s exclusive right to vend.

2. Bourne’s Other Contentions

Bourne objects to the district court’s denial of certain ancillary relief in connection with the jury verdict in its favor on its advertising claim. We see no abuse of discretion in any of the district court’s determinations regarding ancillary relief.

We have considered Bourne’s remaining contentions and find them all to be without merit.

3. The Cross-Appeal

Disney’s principal contention on its cross-appeal is that the district court should have entered judgment as a matter of law on its affirmative defense of estoppel. Judgment as a matter of law cannot be granted on an issue if “there is [a] legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find” to the contrary. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 50. Our review of the record persuades us that a reasonable trier of fact could have found that Disney had not relied detrimentally on Bourne’s conduct. See ''General Elec. Capital Corp. v. Armadora, S.A.'', 37 F.3d 41, 45 (2d Cir.1994). In particular, we note that Disney continued to obtain licenses from Bourne for the use of the Compositions in television advertisements during the 1970s and mid-1980s, and that Disney’s paid television advertisements were infrequent up and through this time period. While Disney certainly provided strong evidence of estoppel, we believe that the jury was entitled to decide this issue in favor of Bourne.

We have considered Disney’s remaining contentions and find them all to be without merit.

In view of the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the district court.