honour's this case terms are matter of statutory construction and meaning and we asked that courts hold that the indian nation is not persons living or dead or an institution within the meaning of section two way of the trademark act such that this matter may proceed to hurling at the age that an indian tribe is an institution within the meaning of section two way it is long settled by the us supreme court that indian nations are dependent sovereign nations and that concept goes back to the worst of each merger by chief justice john marshall nation is a government it functions and in a way akin to the united states government to state government that it  it has its origins as a as a government and the court's holding below the court simply without analysis that it was an institution and that is is incorrect and reversible error your honour's the definition of institutions is not included in the trademark act and are put on its plain meaning of institutions that were does not include a government and city does not include the united states does not include states it does not include indian nations assuming this court reverses on that point the issue remains as to whether an indian tribe is persons living or dead under section two a of the trademark act that is the issue that was not decided below but it was the basis for refusal by the examining attorney and that is where the the contention was between the applicant and the examining attorney below there's two ways to approach persons living or dead and either way it's cut whether want to applies section forty five definition of persons or not and indian tribe under the plain meaning of section two a and under not included in that definition and it's clear from the construction of the statute when by the subsequent to govern route included in the word person years in the subsequent the two following statutory provision specifically states the term person also includes the united states it's a specific it indicates the united states was not includes the government it includes the government because the statute says it also includes the united states and then the following paragraph says  the the term person also includes any state so it's it's  due to say do you have to list every single the arm of government to be included yes if it's a governmental entity yes because the plane reading of the well the even if section forty five applies our position is a sovereign indian nation is not within that plain meaning of the statute but the our position is even if it does apply it we're outside the scope but frankly this court should reconsider notre dame again our position is is i would ask the court to reconsider whether section forty five definition does apply but if if if the court according to to notre dame which our position was are erroneously decided and should be reconsidered either here or before the supreme court the what if notre dame applies does do you lose i realize you say that notre dame is wrong but assume for the moment notre dame does control do you lose no and that's because if it even if you assume section forty five applies and we did deal with  that the definition of a person is is defined by by fifteen u s c eleven twenty seven that was my point at the very beginning even if the court assumes that that is correct and follows the mandate of of the court's precedent and in notre dame we're outside the scope of that definition anyway the plane the plane reading of the statute the definition of person in section eleven twenty seven does not include sovereign governments in its limited definition people and institutions and religious beliefs and groups that might not normally be protected by section two and in this case the application essentially is asking the office to deny the protections of section two way to persons form for a common purpose and a parent in this case seems to think that term institution and their status as a sovereign indian nation are somehow mutually exclusive that if you're one you can't meet the other we don't think that's on institution but if you look at the common meaning of the term institution it's a body of persons and i think the united states is a body of citizens united together as a nation for the it's it's both it's a recognised it's a it's a southern indian nation recognized by the state of new york and it's also a tribe of indians of common descent that have you know have lived in a common area and have common ancestry to graduate from tribe nation traditionally you either look to the state for recognition under state law or you look to the federal government for recognition under federal government law what's the purpose of getting the recognition  you get additional benefits under state and federal law you have increased sovereignty you have the right to to control activities if you have a reservation for example your tribe has sovereign immunity on the reservations or you get a significant bundle of rights that flow from state or federal government recognition the d d a b has consistently interpret the term personal institution in a member of cases some very similar to this case in the two white were both persons and institutions and similarly in the nafta case t j be found that nafta treaty included committees and subcommittees and organizations in the tree itself was an institution and so there are some issue in the decision but if you look back at the record the issue of whether or not the definition of the juristic person because the plane reading of the statute shows that the sovereign sovereignty is listed separately as a specific paragraph for the united states to sovereign immunity there's a separate listing for states which is sovereign immunity there is no listing for indian nations which have sovereign immunity upon the plain reading of the statute