Versace

MEMORANDUM *

Appellants appeal from the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction that enjoined them from transferring or dissipating assets. We review the district court’s decision to grant the preliminary injunction for an abuse of discretion, and we affirm. See Walczak v. EPL Prolong, Inc., 198 F.3d 725, 730 (9th Cir.1999).

Because Gianni Versace, S.p.A. (‘Versace”), accuses Appellants of trademark infringement, the district court had the inherent power to freeze Appellants’ assets through a preliminary injunction to assure the availability of an accounting as a form of final relief. See Reebok Int’l, Ltd. v. Marnatech Enters., Inc., 970 F.2d 552 , 559 (9th Cir.1992). Before granting a preliminary injunction, however, a district court must conclude that the movant had shown the probability of success on the merits of its claims and the possibility of irreparable injury, or that the claims raised serious questions and the balance of hardships tipped sharply in favor of the movant. See Republic of the Philippines v. Marcos, 862 F.2d 1355, 1362 (9th Cir. 1988). Here, the court found that Versace had shown a probability of success on the merits of its trademark…