The court received a petition for rehearing en banc. The original panel has reviewed the petition for rehearing, has addressed the issues therein in an Appendix to the original panel opinion, and has concluded that rehearing is unnecessary. Upon circulation of the petition and the Appendix to the full court, no judge has requested a vote on the suggestion for rehearing en banc.

Therefore, the petition is denied.

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.

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.