that but can you try to separate these two things for me at the outset and that is a question of statutory standing from the question of constitutional sentence mostly arguments about standing here seem to have been framed in terms of what's required under the lan but for you to come here not to go to the t t a b but for you to come here you need constitutional standing a concrete state in something that we can somehow do something for you about standing in front of the federal circuit because i think the issue is really whether there's got to stand for the north but we we did that not because we need to prove that or show that for standing but we put in a section what i've called real life interests and the point of that was the board's decision which seems so at odds with its precedents seems to have departed from that without saying it seems to have just assumed we can't do anything we're here for sort of an intellectual exercise  visor opinion and you know a futile argument the situation we're in is really not that different than the situation of any petitioner who seeking to cancel registration the issues are unique and the complicated and they're novel but we're in the same situation as a party that comes in and the do and the registrant says you have no standing if you have standing as a procedural barrier or preclude a barrier even if you get past that you have a  substantive barrier on the merits but if you get past that you still have to establish a little bit more of literature try to read later on it is try to focus i'm sorry you can't sell your product here so what concrete state the you have in whether somebody else well what i just understood you to say is that there's now a general license that authorizes your company if you have a registration to go to court without further legal permission it's not it's not if i have a rich tradition if it's to enforce or protect the right it's a general it's a generalized beyond the trademark authorization does that include going to court to in to to  sue somebody for infringement of your trademark without further permission yes yes that's right i mean by that let me just let me just to just say that i mean i want to be really clear about what i'm  enjoying what i'm concerned about i'm not aware of a case and maybe you can give me one in which a party comes to federal court as you are now doing here right and says my interest is in doing something that the law otherwise for bids and therefore even if you give me some order in my favor i'm still forbidden to do the things that i have a stake in and i want to know that a able to go into a federal court this recognise the well marked doctrine and argue again now that we have a registration which the government says is the way we obtain our trademark rights this is what the press of i said is the only way to trademark rights we would then go into  freestanding we have a concrete injury which is that we can't register our mark because we can't cancel them our because we have the board said we have no standing and the remedy the relief for that is we will be able to register our mark and that turn out well for you know you want to go back should we see any inconsistency in those positions no because what happened was we went and saw the castle market time and general cigar was basically elementary transactionally bar plain preclusion they did not raise the ca she our defense at that time they waited seven years to raise it so it wasn't an election to go to federal court we were stuck in federal court what happened only there's a limitation on judicial authority there's no license authorizing the district court to do something that winds up with a seventy properly right there's the implicit in my question is the sense that you may be seeking a second bite at the cancel then the board impressive i've never help the board can cancel never addressed it wasn't relevant once and before that if we can go before the board we have the right to get a we will be in a novel situation in the federal courts and the board certainly has no authority to ask on the correct me on the details or maybe even the general point but my understanding is that for you to get a registration based on the foreign mark you need to have a bona fide intent to use or some language like that currently you can't use like that is there some case law and maybe you says the bona fide intent to use which i guess lapses after sixty years is present even if you're legally forbidden to use it yes because at the five six year mark we have to file a statement lots of education if they so that we definitely have a bona fide authentic is humans do their you know they're in the caribbean they have the premier cigars in the world or cohiba which is why we're fighting is considered the most prestigious of our the u s markets huge issues of cancellation determined by the two d the second circuit issued a definitive ruling that general cigars registration was invalid and that to the tobacco is attempted cancellation is granted would be something that was prohibited by the cuban passionate regulations the fundamental flaw in a few bits of apples argument today is to mischaracterize the second circuit as saying something about what the district court can or can't do as opposed to what the seems to say there's no standing because of preclusion in the second circuit and yet they really don't do it a standard preclusion analysis is that something we ought to send back to them to take a look at i don't believe so your honor first i think is the point i just said it's a seventeen year old litigation secondary issue preclusion was argued below third it's purely a question of law and force there really is no question about preclusion the parties are the same second circuit said that it was necessary to its decision to to declare anything about the power of the board which simply wasn't in front of the second circuit didn't say anything about power before what the second circuit did was to board doesn't seem to at least have squarely addressed that question whether the transfer language of the regulations applies equally to the court and the  board so i am a minimum of doesn't seem to me that the second circuit a decided it and b even if it decided it couldn't possibly have been necessary to a chechen while i don't agree with you on a first of all they did decide the court tobacco had just gone to the board and tried to register its mark and lucky notice and then try to cancel your mark are you saying that under the the regulations in place they would have standing to do that i would say if there had never been  litigation before i don't have a border standing the second circuit didn't deny that there was standing in and we would assume that if they're standing in federal court then they will be standing in the to be i think it would have failed on the next round which is the interpretation general cigars mark canceled if you take away if you make the last seventeen years of history which is what you're asking to do then we would have to make the arguments in front of the board that we had made in front of the federal court because we wouldn't have we would not case law has said these are the same they said the reason the eleven nineteen exists is cause if you go to federal court you can get open injunctive relief and cancellation relief which is more efficient and that's exactly what  we are the same issues all over again because of the second circuit obviously didn't say anything about what the board can do is a misreading of the decision which is all about what the human asset regulations it seems to me that there are at least two possible open issues with respect to whether the cancellation request is bark one is th possible difference between the court and the t t a b doing at the other is a possible difference between or among different grounds for cancellations so that for example if you were arguing if the other side was arguing for cancellation because say you abandoned the property right one could possibly think of that as a situation in which nothing is actually being transferred from you to them whereas maybe other grounds are are different and you had somewhat and the board didn't explore the any possible differences with respect to the regulation its mark declared and untestable and all the other benefits that a registrant has over an ordinary citizen that's the case yes then the logical falling out of your argument is no keeping company can go to the board and try to the answer is yes the second circuit by the way has the board ever addressed by quite a board has not addressed that question it sounds like the board is process at least registration and i don't write they've had cancellation action where there's a distinction and a real meaningful distinction between and that and that i guess the second circuit said that the august one thousand nine hundred six letter from treasury which i guess everybody's treating as a special license is procedural only and not in any way subsumed that's right the government filed an amicus brief which is in the exceptions are very narrow and they don't comprise the suppose suppose we didn't think that the second circuit pronouncement on that was buying and why in the world would the governments of view of the content of decided by the second circuit but i would say there is a meaningful distinction one i just raise between what the regulations permit which is registration renewal and the cancellation of it i think i think we would argue to defer to their interpretation you do if you do further but you don't say that the last work and there are a number of federal court decision saying although we defer to the government this can't be sustained under an order under a plain i'm interested in is whether that's right i think we can we can deal with whether the second circuit meant that or not i just don't see in the regulations where people were keeping companies don't have the right to see cancellation as part of their rights which i think you don't dispute that they can register there are i think there are two entirely separate lights and and most particularly where the regulations and the embargo regulations would you point to to suggest that they can't do that which point in the language itself related to the registration or renewal of markets which is the applicable language cancellation is not in itself related to the registration of a mark but in a circumstance such as this where you i the interpretation of the second circuit is that there is a broad and i believe it's correct and i would argue this in front of the board or this court or the issue being raised fresh is that there is a broad probation and that the exceptions have to be read merril that is consistent with the purpose of the environment which is to prohibit two bins from benefiting governor's race the exception to cover a cancellation proceeding wherein the language doesn't specifically bar a cancellation it does not tonight just looking at the broad policy considerations serious cohiba isn't protected here does that mean that coca cola and mcdonald and that that kind of justifies us doing the same ascendancy which since two thousand and six as far as i'm aware there's no retaliatory action taken because of this decision so the idea that that there is a policy in fact from the court hundred six letter by and the question is is that a in fact itself a special license or is it as its language suggests more than that that it is a piece of advice about the meaning of the generalisations as it's written as a to say here's what we think five twenty seven the general authorized is treasury independently authorized to say doesn't matter what five twenty seven authorizes we have power you know our discretion to grant you permission to dies tomorrow and the the whole prohibition goes away what how does that change all this it doesn't change all of this my client would still have had the benefit of a vested final federal judgment that declares tha even companies from trying to cancel marks because that would be a transfer property and they wouldn't say that because it's not a it's a transfer of property under an oppressive but it's not in violation of the embargo because it's so it's  are or by rulings instructions licenses or otherwise so the one hundred ninety six letters either ruling or it's an otherwise but it's a interpretation of the general license and it's entitle to the strongest possible because it's the being a specifically it's not a specific license within the meaning of the regulation ok it's a general like it's an interpretation of a generalized it's a flexible of all people pardons cited in the three four decisions we cite in our brief in which i mentioned which they say and just to be the board says and just to be perfectly clear just because the cuban pardons can't sell in the united states does not mean they don't have standing the five point five point five to seven and their interest in either party getting a registration or protecting a market in which they have an interest in his in this case our property interests and that's one place where the boys for clearly wrong says we have no property interest or the second circuit said we have no problem interest we have a trademark application under liftin that's a legitimate commercial interest so under four point five to seven in terms of whether or not the board is authorized to cancel it said it's a property transfer it fits in violation of the embargo and violation the embargo because the judicial limitation issue was never argued to