missouri and northern arkansas in doing so they were very limited in what they could and couldn't stay where they couldn't couldn't sell and the parties even if it was decided the i'm not sure why you say they were limited in what they could tense there is no such thing there are decisions of courts preferably the supreme court cart he talks about in the street unique relationship between a manufacturer distributor and the fact that these parties oftentimes have on usual relationships can be married so it's a it's being offered that was the one that was in discussion and they asked can we go ahead and use the red cross logo at that time the parties enter to an agreement they said sure let's go ahead and do that you can use it in southern illinois and that was an agreement after the parties had already to ask permission to use the mark if you already owned it our clients never claimed or paid any designer created the red cross logo we've always taken the position that that was created by for sima however the word mark relationship between the main facts your and the distributor you're going to find that these kinds of things happen there's confusion that can be generated by who owns a trigger a trademark between the manufacturer and the distributor that's why  selling any other storm shelter that's a different question from whether there were limitations they were not in fact selling but there were no limitations that's a letter that would be one consideration other considerations i'm interested in a different question about profits did anybody try to estimate how much profit the defendants made by using this market no your honor in fact that's one of our concerns concerns that the district court didn't take into consideration is what really went on was a bentley to drugs what's going to take that into consideration if nobody produced any evidence of that but i take it your answer means nobody hired an expert to try to  alleyway to the differences in sales according to how these marks were used and when people started and stopped using them there is no such evidence in the record with regard to those those questions are other there's no there's further no evidence two different aspects of the garden damages one would be that one argument is that the damages don't apply to infringement the car alleged infringement the current side of the territory in which the market was  all the rest ninety eight ninety nine percent of the damages are awarded based upon sales by distributors outside of the territory so you have two levels here first there's sales by other parties that are being contemplated the second talking about a sixty eight year timeframe for over that entire period of time total sales of less than six hundred thousand dollars of the storm shelters for sixty years and yet the court awarded seventeen million dollars to the territoriality and geographical limitations of a common law trademark a common word trademark is limited in scope to the territory in which was being used and that is in southern missouri and northern arkansas  reconsidered either command of the considered and put in place to coincide with the actual types of injuries and damage associated with the infringement that's been alleged in this case we have are looking for is the court to reduce the damages to the twenty six thousand dollars which was the incidence of occurrences occurred within the territory with regard to mr  proprietorship and all participants in a proprietorship or a partnership not found in the court then went on to find personal liability for bob as a conspirator under still conspiracy i don't believe that the record indicates that the court found that there were no formalit to particular geographic area then right to use the marks were limited to the retail sales and installations in southern illinois also it was listed only to certain specific goods only those storm shelters manufactured by  that a relationship with an exclusive distributor usually when it's an international many are factual or in the exclusive distributor is the us presidents who basically fills the role of the manufacturer in distributing by sales to dealers across the country nationwide as opponents of recognize perceiving was never a distributor they were a big deal or they were retail merchants starting to end users they were never going to distribute or they were never even exclusive the actual more importantly even the limitation in a contract year on the installation contract was as appellants noted in their argument limited to a handful of counts and they had a nice wide i'm worried about several aspects of damage art so therefore there was no mention necessary but more importantly your honor to answer your question asked of opposing counsel no argument as to whether or not there was any effort made to distinguish between revenues that came in from the use of the that might be attributed to the words from sales that might be attributed to your greek cross regardless of color and next i'll ask whether there was any effort to distinguish yellow from the words were never used apart from the greek cross then presumably you could get damages only to the extent that the greek cross was yellow you're out of the i'm sorry i was not clear the wording mark was always to use separately standing alone at the same act at the same time you are saying it was never you know the local i am trying to figure out whether there was any effort to distinguish i gather you agree that there is no doubt that there was no effort to determine how mark the mark contributed to the sales or improper correct who has the burden on th eleven years and by only requiring it just for some of the actual miles received of any interest or any enhancement they actually got the enrichment and get to retain the benefit of having to use that money for a very substantial period of time so that argue that fact that he didn't specifically know they were appealing you know many ruling on the logo issue did not preclude them from waiving it for that reason there but it wasn't tried and if there was no statute it talks about fraud it talks about using something you imitation and the court in it's basically has been routinely held that if there's distinguishing characteristics that it's not an imitation of and it's basically a side by side  side by side comparison of the emblems in this case we show that there is no possibility of confusion there was no one and there's no indication that was it ever a time to be anything connected to the american red cross and by the express words of you know i'm from believer there but for the grace of god go i didn't practice for a long time i never even prodded motion like this but in this case from day one we tried to areas that were simply impossible both factually and legally even if something tried to assert the growing company argument after acquiring a dormant subsidiary nine years later they didn't even use that subsidiary as a plaintiff it was clearly just an attempt to pressure our client to drop their claims to the remarks that was rightfully theirs and it was just pursued relentlessly repeatedly of great cost with no real reason or explanation and frankly your honor as we say of every if this is not the case for the awful case in th rule i'm not sure what  my name is roman basi i represent myself as the power by force e mail that was the preemptive strike in the case that is when my client reached out to me and said roman i have a problem they're wanting a local mark when we looked it up i found out that they couldn't sell what they were trying to sell to my client that was the preemptive strike in that case why did we go through this route and look at federal litigation and why did i put the team together i needed to put together to give them the basis for it because we realized very early on in the trademark opposition and with the shifting wars interference that waiting at the u s p t o level was not going to resolve our problem we won we would still have to follow up with federal trademark litigation and once i reached out to the people with the knowledge that had that proper background that is exactly what they informed us they said roman your response to go to the u s p t o is fine but you're going to have to follow through with federal trademark infringement or you could have a problem still yet down the road i want to i would like to bring to your attention another section of the situation you would be requiring a managing partner an owner of a company to be get to know exactly as read merits of every claim their attorneys were bringing for them i believe that had the right people in place and i believe  claims and counsel stands up and drops exactly the same thing they are arguing that we did that was an reasonable so i don't know where the difference becomes how that was done which was exhibits fourteen presented at trial and clearly states lifesaver storm shelters by southern illinois storm shelters this was five months before for simo ever came on the s is this exhibit mentioned he was the most damaging witness and the most damaging to ship it to foresee most cases and they just ignored him like he's not they don't now are what we also know or what i mean when i file and they had a response to them tell them that you used the red cross on file all before i came on board and not a single one of those pleadings of applications ever suggested that they think you used this name and they allowed them to do it many green to go ahead let's go ahead and use it so when they entered into these various agreements were talked about later those agreements are based upon the logo and not the word mark was never recognised the word mark was owned by has in this case given that your client did not make any effort to separate the effects of either recrossed from the language or the trademark understand that but open to discussion damages to ask what happens if infringement is shown correct use there do you have any response to y talk about the merits and damages shephard the merits to one song do you have any response with respect to how one seventeen applies to damages well if the damages two marks one of which well setting aside the entire ownership issue but we have another mark which is illegal not to be used and that mark is being pretty gather in the same damages category when there's no infringement with the damage assessment determination for the word mark there is no clarity between the two the damages have to be a trust issue and is tributed to infringement and so the damages were not in this case were trivial to both marks not just one