great i'm almost embarrassed to waste your time on the type of issues that we're talking about here that appreciate the opportunity to be here the central issue that we are feeling and not necessarily brought up by substance or briefing by appeals thank you we don't believe it's moot because we believe had we had an opportunity to argue standing that we would have gotten to the situation we're in additionally we don't believe it's moot and so much that when the june twelfth order came down from the trademark office and issuing the cancellations we immediately appealed this matter to this court if the court finds that it's  we would probably be ok with that as long as the trademark offices order is vacated that would open the opportunity for my client to file the trademark applications of a new just like any other if it's based on your conduct what is the legal basis upon you would which you would argue that we should therefore also say kate the decision well the dish or the the issue and in that situation would be that board june twelfth order didn't necessarily cancel as how models actually argued registrations at that moment rather the registrations war cancelled later month or so later because of the failure to file the section eight affidavits well that's what makes your case moved you didn't follow through on that affidavit and they canceled it independently of this action to challenge your trademark well we believe that we didn't your honor but we also don't see any case all that direct that an affidavit not filed after the cancellation order has issued and this is an assessor necessarily makes an issue moot and not appealable we don't see that in  this issue in this these cases before corporation hop on i was and this is just one case that we've had personally our firm and many other firms over the course of thirteen years is that corporation of knowledge should not even bring these cases to begin with there are actually before this court on a separate case a cohiba case which i think another panel heard a couple weeks ago and some of the panel asking questions about whether a corporation how miles actually has a legal right to sell their brands in the united states what is their real interests and that's what we'd like honor and i won't go into that but dismissal based or canceling a trademark is really into is an exceptional thing we actually asked and agreed to some of the sanctions and always said that's fine just let us defend against their which is their burden to prove their standing that's all we ask for we conceded all kinds of things we said we just want to dispute the standing issue and we were foreclosed from doing that on a trial merits  another issue  each registrant must file a section eight application within six and a half years and if not it shall be cancelled there's nothing that the board the director or this court can do to correct the failure to file before the mark the registrations are actually cancelled and in this case the board said they will be cancel the due course were to pursue it to its rules they were going to cancel until after this appeal would become final standard is was it caused by happenstance or circumstances beyond the party of the losing party because the move misses control or was it through a voluntary action or inaction in other words they simply forgot to do dispute but mr herrera has not put in any compelling circumstance or any ordinary circumstance or any facts or there's nothing for this court or the board to weigh or evaluate against each other as to whether or not circumstance and there's no such a circumstance here there's nothing for this court to do that would be different than the board so yes i would say this court would be in a position of finding the case moot and leave the judgment place and in this particularly the register and has no equity it chose not to comply with the board's discovery orders and then when the sanctions motion came in it still chose not to comply and in fact the proposed minor sanctions that would allow it to continue to disobey the order so it has no equities in its favor with before the board and it has no equity here because it's just simply a fail to file the section eight so yes i default question and a motion to dismiss by me on a kind of plan that was granted motion to compel which is granted and then a motion for sanctions and that judgment telling the world before the board that if you don't comply with your discovery quest you may very well find yourself sanctioned including judgement is a valuable public resource exactly as u s bancorp said so on the question of glutenous there's no way around this problem  r the registrant because there's just no exception there the world needs to rely on the u s registry and need to be able to look and say has a section eight been filed if not this registrations that if the dead and the world needs to be able to look at the p t o the online registry and know what the situation is and not guess well are they going to continue the appeal are they have equities in their favor so on the un's both the question of mootness i think that's  straightforward i think what we spend a lot of time on taxis because the court invention that and i think if we look at the ones and registration of the one that's in patsy's one you'll see it's on all fours with this case that's the one that they didn't challenge even  was the impact of that decision on the board and we've made our arguments and they make their arguments and that's pending but in terms of this the standing problem and that's just so different that i don't see any relevance to that here issue again the trademark office actually for the first time told corporation was that it did not have standing in the basis for that is complicated and it's in that briefing but the central issue there was the trademark office said you don't have standing because the second circuit says you don't have that we just wanted to address whether that case had any relevance it did have relevance because it was found that cohiba they had no legal rights that mark our issue on standing is that they have no legal right to hold on a house they have no real interest they have no real objection only rational asked my friend whether you are compelled to vacate this matter and i don't believe you are compelled i didn't find a case that said you are compelled you can take into consideration some equity arguments and certainly we would like to bring those arguments based on equity that issue standing is so important to this case and so many of the cases that they have brought against similarly situated small cigar manufacturers that equity would really be in our best interest or best argument here thank you very much morning all right