22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T44f,facts on the record, and there was no need for the court to consider further evidence 3 of alternative designs. Id. In addition, because the overall configuration of the slurry pump is “nothing other than the assemblage of functional parts,” there is no separate trade dress protection for the appearance of the pump as a whole. Leatherman Tool Grp., Inc. v. Cooper Indus., Inc., 199 F.3d 1009, 1013 (9th Cir. 1999). Although Weir’s claims were ultimately unsuccessful, we agree with the district court that this was not an “exceptional” case under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), because Weir did not act unreasonably or in bad faith. See Applied Info. Scis. Corp. v. eBay, Inc., 511 F.3d 966, 973 (9th Cir. 2007) (denying attorneys’ fees to a prevailing plaintiff). The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in denying attorneys’ fees to Atlas. We do not address Atlas’s request for attorneys’ fees for this appeal, as any such request must be made by separate motion. Ninth Cir. R. 39-1.6. In No. 09-36151, AFFIRMED. In No. 10-35051, AFFIRMED. 424:T4a1,

facts on the record, and there was no need for the court to consider further evidence

3 of alternative designs. Id. In addition, because the overall configuration of the

slurry pump is “nothing other than the assemblage of functional parts,” there is no

separate trade dress protection for the appearance of the pump as a whole.

Leatherman Tool Grp., Inc. v. Cooper Indus., Inc., 199 F.3d 1009, 1013 (9th Cir.

1999).

Although Weir’s claims were ultimately unsuccessful, we agree with the

district court that this was not an “exceptional” case under the Lanham Act, 15

U.S.C. § 1117(a), because Weir did not act unreasonably or in bad faith. See

Applied Info. Scis. Corp. v. eBay, Inc., 511 F.3d 966, 973 (9th Cir. 2007) (denying

attorneys’ fees to a prevailing plaintiff). The district court therefore did not abuse

its discretion in denying attorneys’ fees to Atlas. We do not address Atlas’s

request for attorneys’ fees for this appeal, as any such request must be made by

separate motion. Ninth Cir. R. 39-1.6.

In No. 09-36151, AFFIRMED. In No. 10-35051, AFFIRMED.