In this appeal, plaintiff Optimum Technologies, Inc. (“Optimum”) raises a Henkel Corporation, the parent company of HCA, was also named as a defendant in this action and appears as a party in the caption of this appeal. The district court, however, determined that Henkel Corporation had no involvement in any of the facts alleged in Optimum’s complaint. Accordingly, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Henkel Corporation on all counts that had been lodged against it. That decision is not challenged by Optimum on appeal, and is therefore deemed waived. See AT&T Broadband v. Tech Commc’ns, Inc., 381 F.3d 1309, 1320 n.14 (11th Cir. 2004) (“Issues not raised on appeal are considered abandoned.”) (citation omitted).
A number of challenges to the district court’s disposition of its action against defendant-appellee Henkel Consumer Adhesives, Inc. (“HCA”). Specifically, Optimum argues that: (1) the district court erred in granting partial summary judgment in favor of HCA on Optimum’s claims of trademark infringement and
unfair competition; (2) the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of HCA on Optimum’s claims of breach of confidential relationship, breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent concealment, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation; and (3) the district court erred in granting --- following a jury trial that resulted in a mistrial --- HCA’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law on Optimum’s trademark and unfair competition claims, due to a lack of evidence establishing
Optimum’s damages. Following a careful review of the record and the arguments on appeal, we discern no reversible error by the district court, and, therefore, we AFFIRM.