statement that the board made on page seven of its opinion which is also appendix page seven in which it clearly stated that for our declaration also and i am for size the word also also contained a verminous regarding the exhibits previously submitted and then in two pages later and pages nine and ten it seems to have forgotten entirely and it characterizes the entire declaration as consisting of rebuttal information and a can and it says that a small subcategory that was proper rebuttal testimony but most of it was improper and so because it said that it was improper and because it provided all and because its also said that the evidence was withheld until the reply it said it would not s but the board clearly contradicted itself when the knowledge first that there was there were statements made a very in the decorations or sorry that the exhibits in the opening brief and then proceeded to forget that it had made that statement and and characterized the whole decoration as one of rebuttal decoration was in fact withheld until the reply and this isn't that case here the evidence was submitted with the opening brief and a pelleas had a full opportunity to respond to and in fact did respond to it substantively and then  those cases simply just don't apply when when this is a case where they did in fact have the evidence and were able to respond to it unlike those cases this is similar to the case in rejects then which was cite favored and is preferred and so that case clearly shows that the error that the board made in ignoring the government's relating to the opening brief was prejudicial and case they really speak to fairness and they speak to the fact that all parties should have an opportunity to litigate their cases and the concern is that if too much if evidence is coming in a reply then the other party won't have the chance to respond they hear any unfairness actually flows the other way because there is evidence that opponents are the senior users of the market they have standing to bring this proceeding and they should be able to have that fully considered particularly part of the opinion appears just not to be based in any reasonable basis because it was limited to a time period which is really an entirely arbitrary time period the appellants and sorry the appellee in her sworn declaration stated that she checked the website the wildstar dot com website in august she checked it periodic lee she checked it in november she checked it frequently and that even as of december there wasn't a live web site and those statements are demonstrably false in the for our a declaration did submit testimony in documentary evidence showing that the statements are false and the board agreed that those she didn't say that she only checked on those dates or she didn't even say that she checked it between that time frame those were two particular dates in which she checked it apparently beginning in august when she reached out to a pass to inquire about a potential purchase so again that evidence that was vital evidence excluding that a great leave prejudiced my client in that that evidence the mid south faster shows that not only does she have standing but she basically having an opinion that doesn't have any reasonable basis and so absolutely there are reversible errors here it was an error to characterize the entire for a decoration statements made by a colleague and and not provide a reason why opponents could not respond to those statements regarding their evidentiary objection for further response and lack of response cannot be construed as an objection when the other hand says that it is as a lack of objection i'm sorry when the evidence has considered here it's very clear that opponents do have standing and that they do have the prior use in the mark so i would submit again that it's very important that their evidence be allowed to be considered so that they have their their day in court and that the errors be reverse