paid for the registered marks and associates get well as a minimal amount how do you qualify that as minimal what was your basis in the context of a large nationwide retailer like p c richards which has i believe sixty changed over time but mr palmer's affidavit it for fifty seven says of the product so selected as was deals and he says change periodically and that's repeated other places  a link how can we take traditional notice of that what's our authority for doing that and how is that proper evidence by the way i think it is it would not be proper evidence because of course it peter referenced is quit after the close of evidence but in the in the context of internet websites and the dynamic nature of those websites then we think it's appropriate for the court to consider that the way one can view a website at a particular time not more than that you already for that to know your own i'm sorry no your honor other than the at best want to tory and therefore we the board found thirty seven dollars registrations and nine websites including the word with related product areas and this further demonstrates that these marks relatively weak and have only natural protection of course the other way you evaluate trademark strength is commercial strength and hear the voice correctly found that the marks don't have any of them p c rich is barely that yes they got the factors right but no they didn't give each of the factors that you think should have been given more weight the weight that it should have been given that's right that's correct  course this this this this quote has the right and me and the obligation to reconsider that is you do know about what they should have been a finding was that the marks are not dissimilar that's an interesting hypothetical you want i don't think so i think i would say it too but short out to your own question is no i don't ok you don't think it would come out the same way i don't think i cannot say what big because what happened is that the code the marks are so weak plaintiff has never sought to prove itself it's also unique because most cases that arise from the t th b do not involve actual confusion as a particularly relevant factor and that's because usually there's no opportunity for actual confusion to occur but here's a board made a specific factual finding supported by more than substantial evidence that in fact there was an ample opportunity for actual confusion to a car and none has occurred for dot com provided information on how to order products over the phone i couldn't find it is there any such evidence in the record i guess there is there is  related goods and services to be dispositive similarity of the goods and the overlap of the customers who are not sophisticated so because the goods and services travel in the exact same trade channels directed to the exact same if he claimed that the board found that the marks were inherently and commercially weak however that's really not what the board that was the board did w and the reason it found a suggestive connotation is because this court in just generation said that boards must look at rd party use as well as rd party registrations to determine if there might be appellee is more color and that's exactly what this board did and after conducting that analysis which the board analyzed the entire body of evidence focusing on six trademarks set out in its opinion as board to parse out all of the relevant rd party registrations and websites which exist is exactly what the board did here and when the board focused on the six trademarks and the nine website find where on the spectrum of very strong which would be the arbitrary mark which is however because of the suggestive connotation it seemed to have based upon the analysis the court said it needed to do in juice generation it found that it did have a suggestive kind of patient and therefore it would not be entitled to a very broad scope of protection however it was in title to a somewhat narrow scope of protection because similarity of the similarity of the marks and because the customers overlap so here the court did not find that these marks were inherently weak quite to the contrary the board found that they were not so weak that what consequence i mean your friend this is just bizarre really about weighing the bear use factories and we all agree obviously that the board concluded that it should the mark should be given a restricted scope of protection of the likelihood that unsophisticated customers would come into contact with these very similar marks with the very same trade channels over web sites all the customers both suggestive or highly suggestive marks are entitled to protest where there is a likelihood of confusion because of the similar i already have them are the same trade channels and  not misquoting him but that there was no evidence of any sales that you made under these march presumably that going back to the time that you acquired the market is there any evidence to the contrary yes there is evidence of the sound of course there is because these marks were used as the st they were their own websites and then they were a cooperated and brought into the overall branding on the p c richard  generation the strength of the market falls and found that because of the similarity of the marks and the close relationship of the goods and the exact same customers and trade channels that those with the dispositive factors in this case while considering the other factors and whilst giving this these marks a somewhat narrow scope as to the similarity of the marks but this support followed that the exact arguments that were made and rejected by the board should just be found to be different and that the facts should a different conclusion on the facts should be drawn which is in stratus of what is said not what is what should be done basically if the findings are based on substantial evidence they should be sustained and they were here there's no doubt that the word generic which is the fate forms the basis of the a similarity between their words here simply does not change the commercial impression of the market with and so when you look at the dominant portions of with and with here it became very apparent that impress and finally the actual confusion weight that council argues should outweigh all of the other very strong dispositive factors here the court simply said that yes it  does weigh against finding the likelihood of confusion however the other factor is again the same customers and countering very similar goods and services closely related goods and services that same trade found on substantial evidence the palace arguments here really amount simply to asking this board to find different conclusions based on the record evidence which all of the cases don't line corps in re chatham strat arbitrary with this board found the marks are arbitrary what they said just as connotation and that it did not have rise to the level of same in terms of commercial strength so what's the likely they found was that mean that there is not confusion where the customers are the same and the goods and services of the same and where the customers are not sophisticated that's exactly what we have here and those of exactly the factors that support  because that would mean that anytime there is a restricted scope of protection that those marks should receive no protection but in fact that's a restricted scope is exactly what the board's steve davis mark in sa they evidence of sales question that was asked by the court that there's no evidence of sales in this in the seven year period after which they p c richard stopped recording orders about most submit thank you thank you your hon