MURPHY, Circuit Judge. Trademarks allow consumers to distinguish one product from another quickly and cheaply. But they could not perform this signaling function if a trademark owner’s competitors could freely use the owner’s mark to sell their (potentially inferior) goods. So the Lanham Act has long prohibited trademark infringement and given trademark owners a variety of remedies to combat it. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114(1), 1117(a), 1125(a)(1)(A). This case raises several challenging questions under the Lanham Act.

Steve Skilken, the owner of Max Rack, Inc., invented a piece of gym equipment that he named the “Max Rack.” For years, his company sold Max Racks through a licensing agreement with Core Health & Fitness, LLC. When Max Rack’s last patent expired, however, Core Health decided to compete against Max Rack by selling an identical machine under a new name—the “Freedom Rack.” Max Rack alleged that Core Health committed two types of infringement during its transition to the Freedom Rack: it continued to sell “Max Racks” without authorization, and it attempted to sell Freedom Racks by free riding off the “Max Rack” name. A jury agreed, awarding Max Rack $1 million in damages and $250,000 in Core Health’s profits. The district court upheld the jury’s liability finding, doubled its profits award to $500,000, and granted attorney’s fees to Max Rack. But the court overturned Max Rack’s damages award. Both sides have appealed, and we must address several liability and remedy issues. All told, we affirm in part and reverse in part.

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Under the National Labor Relations Act (“Act”), the National Labor Relations Board (“Board”) has jurisdiction over unfair labor practice claims brought against an “employer.” 29 U.S.C. §§ 158(a), 160(a). Exempt from the definition of “employer” is the federal government. Id. § 152(2). In its petition for review of the Board’s decision finding that the company had committed unfair labor practices, Bannum Place of Saginaw, LLC (“Bannum”) argues that it is a joint employer with the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) and thus falls within the federal-government exemption. The Board has filed a cross-application to enforce its order remedying the unfair labor practices. We hold that the Board had jurisdiction and that its order must be enforced.

A jury convicted the Defendant, Corey Young, of possession of three hundred grams or more of methamphetamine with the intent to sell in a school zone, a Class A felony; possession of three hundred grams or more of methamphetamine with the intent to deliver in a school zone, a Class A felony; two counts of possession of a firearm with the intent to go armed during the commission of or attempt to commit a dangerous felony, a Class D felony; and two counts of possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony drug offense, a Class C felony. He received an effective sentence of forty-one years. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and asserts that his right to confront witnesses was violated. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the Defendant’s convictions and remand for correction of the judgment forms.

The petitioner, Randall Ward, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, which petition challenged his 2018 Madison County Circuit Court jury convictions of possession with the intent to sell and deliver cocaine and possession of drug paraphernalia, alleging that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. Discerning no error, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

The petitioner, Donald J. Vaughn, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, which petition challenged his guilty-pleaded convictions of aggravated rape, alleging that his guilty pleas were invalid because he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. Because the issue was previously determined, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

A Gibson County jury convicted the Defendant, Roy Thomas Rogers, Jr., of initiating the manufacture of methamphetamine, promoting the manufacture of methamphetamine, possession of drug paraphernalia, and criminal impersonation. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of twelve years. On appeal, the Defendant argues that: (1) the trial court improperly admitted evidence, (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, and (3) the trial court improperly sentenced him. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

The petitioner, Marcus Levy, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, which petition challenged his conviction of first degree murder, alleging that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. Discerning no error, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

The petitioner, Rickey R. Jordan, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, which petition challenged his 2020 Shelby County Criminal Court guilty-pleaded convictions of aggravated robbery and aggravated assault, arguing that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Willie Hooper, Sr., Defendant, was convicted of one count of rape of a child and one count of aggravated sexual battery after a jury trial. He was sentenced to an effective sentence of twenty-five years at 100% for the convictions. After the denial of a motion for new trial, Defendant appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions. After a review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Akeem Goodman, appeals the Knox County Criminal Court’s denial of his post-conviction petition, seeking relief from his convictions of attempted first degree murder and especially aggravated robbery and resulting effective forty-four-year sentence. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to prepare for trial adequately, failed to advise him about his case, failed to interview multiple witnesses, and failed to call a witness to testify at trial. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.