opinion: BUCK et al. v. BILKIE.
  No. 6754.
  Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
  Feb. 13, 1933.
  Philip Cohen, of Los Angeles, Cal. (Nathan Burkan, Louis O. Frolich, and Abraham Walter Socolow, all of New York City, N. Y., of counsel), for appellant.
  Before WILBUR, SAWTELLE, and MACK, Circuit Judges.
  PER CURIAM.
  Appeal by plaintiffs from so much of a decree enjoining further violation of their copyright in a musical composition as denied to them any damages or attorneys’ fees.
  In the absence of proof of actual damages, an award of at least $250 damages is mandatory. Jewell-LaSalle Realty Co. v. Buck, 283 U. S. 202, 51 S. Ct. 407, 75 L. Ed. 978, construing 17 U. S. C. § 25 (b), 17 USCA § 25 (b), the Copyright Act § 25 (b).
  Under section 40 of the act (17 USCA § 40), “the Court may award to the pre- • vailing party a reasonable attorney’s fee.” Any such award is clearly discretionary: We find no abuse of discretion in the denial qf attorneys’ fees, inasmuch as infringement ceased immediately on what defendant testified to have been the first notice received.
  The decree will be modified by adding thereto an award of the statutory minimum of $250 damages, in addition to the costs.
instruction: What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
  Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
  When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 
  
  Your task concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private organization or association", specifically "business, trade, professional, or union (BTPU)". Your task is to determine what subcategory of private association best describes this litigant.
choices: Business or trade association utilities co-ops Professional association - other than law or medicine Legal professional association Medical professional association AFL-CIO union (private) Other private union Private Union - unable to determine whether in AFL-CIO Public employee union- in AFL-CIO (include groups called professional organizations if their role includes bargaining over wages and work conditions) Public Employee Union - not in AFL-CIO Public Employee Union - unable to determine if in AFL-CIO Union pension fund; other union funds (e.g., vacation funds) Other Unclear