Does the Ninth Circuit's refusal to disgorge profits in this case of intentional infringement involving the identical mark on identical products conflict with this Court's decision in Mishawaka Rubber & Woolen Mfg. Co. v. S. S. Kresge Co., 316 U.S. 203 (1942), and the Circuit courts' interpretation of Mishawaka, mandating disgorgement of profits to deter infringement, even when direct competition or diverted sales cannot be shown?

QUESTION PRESENTED Does the Ninth Circuit’s refusal to disgorge profits in this case of intentional infringement involving the identical mark on identical products conflict with this Court’s decision in Mishawaka Rubber & Woolen Mfg. Co. v. S. S. Kresge Co., 316 U.S. 203 (1942), and the Circuit courts’ interpretation of Mishawaka, mandating disgorgement of profits to deter infringement, even when direct competition or diverted sales cannot be shown?