be case but i'll try not to anyway the the bottom line is that my client is a small family corporation operated by a young lady by the name of that's not areally the bottom line that's the first line that's the first line more mine is that you're raising a number of issues all of which seemingly have problems why don't you address the problems are right in the background the strongest the strongest issue here is that the trial judge had an emphasis as to whether or not there was a binding agreement or contract between the parties in deciding who will the rest of the issues here and what we are saying in our strongest point was always that even if the parties did not know each other and were not involved in any type of contractual arrangement or agreement the fact of the matter is and it's not disputed by childcare for school special that they started out in two thousand they established a website they claim which is bitter as you say they being child craft in school lower price to someone else but what's the wrong of which your body complains that the district court decided against our claim is that they took the name sits back and they would not have taken it if they didn't have a good all the time they knew this before they ever got involved and there you've confused me because i've read the wreck i don't find any evidence that there was no registered trademark the record as i read it the past they abandon it arc our client then renewed their efforts in two thousand and four trademark designation and it's presently being fought out by eight we're talking about eleven twenty five unfair competition yes and we're talking about even a word or or any type of misleading act what's the unfair competition well what they d them and that we would back off and not compete in those areas that they were in fact addressing through their sales and catalogues well let's take what you say is your best one that they that they use the their claim is in two thousand and three they set it up to sell see pockets they claim that they were their website was offering both right in the beginning and also it was offered to see pocket with the seats where is the evidence that they you also say the same sack was offered at a deliberately high price so the fact no one would buy what's the evidence of that it's going to say many what's the evidence were selling their c park they did not tell my client that they were selling to park initially that was theirs they in turn listed the seat sakit two to three dollars more in price than the seat pocket so they used to search for the name sac had they raised the price of the seat so well established is not a russian they stay didn't raise the price of the seats are our wholesale price was never raised now i'm talking about the price they rather than waste the court's time i'll look for that my say five minutes and i will get that information but i am saying to the court which i would know but even if they did why couldn't they sell me the product so that we hear whatever price they want where was your brief yes cullen's bendix if you look at one fifteen pelleas product not ours now they say they stopped this and they only had to get rid of a few items in two thousand and three but the only reason they stopped this conduct which wound up in several million dollars worth of and said we should go forward and the motions for summary judgment made and at that point time the people listing so the point is that our strongest point you can't use our names  could understand what was going on because in every polish the only reason that there was a break up was that we found out they were in manufacturing through investigation through a taiwan distributor  c u and that continued also up to two thousand and seven so all of these issues of using the goodwill of the name c sac and under a eleven twenty five even  were much less the same sex symbol of the trademark cannot be used for that purpose it resulted in the sales of the c parks for several million dollars without any consideration my clients and put them out of the market the point is not the higher price of the c it's a trial court about all that it said continually through its decision they didn't have a contract it really without a contract know what it is say about this issue about using the seats act name to celibacy aka only it said basically that we had to show a secondary meaning that it wasn't well  shows they can print out of a page with the seat pocket product on it and the word seat sack in the search term nobody knows whether that search was conducted  crafted occasion it is not some website geared towards seat sack well that may be but don't you think there's a problem there to use somebody else's might end up hiring to work for them to a page where you're selling competing product if i had thought that one of the allegations was that the search names the fact is used to attract a website that's all boats the second seat pocket i have difficulty in seeing what's wrong with that but if you just use the seats back that you can show a search where it led to both products doesn't mean that that was always true it appears from one of the fifty that it wasn't true that well or some circumstances at least some searches at some period of time where would lead you to both products yes to say that one moment  evidence that was created by the plaintiffs act in this case and we don't know the circumstances or the timing in which it was created and this is important because when this lawsuit was file and learned of this issue for the first time that its search protocols was seizing on the word seat and bringing up both products like you your honor we didn't think anything was wrong with that but we  think yes one nineteen you're on our show see pockets under the keyword seat sack but again this is this is a from the print out at she said until recently if they visitor to child cross website enter the search term seat sac the website would produce information about this both the c pop seat sac product which i understand led you only to see somebody else say that we have missed murphy's declaration which is that peach one eighty two of the supplemental appendix but her declaration is very much a piece with this cleaners not in this situation and here's why when someone goes to the website and puts in the word seats act it is not child craft who is using that term the user will get as it is it or of the word seat it directs you to see packet once it directed you to both when both proper for sale and to see packet when there packet was offered present only once child crap became aware of this upon the filing of the lawsuit yet said we will change it that was not him phatic least not at the order of the court john kraft made that change immediately once it read the allegations of sea tax complaint but even if your honored considers that to be a problem under the lanham act use still have a gaping eviden here and that is the absence of any evidence at all that anyone other than the plaintiff executed a search under the name seats at that anyone was deceived or likely to but we have ok i don't think you have to give him an inference your honor he's got an obligation to come forward with evidence of confusion or a likelihood of confusion and there is no evidence that anyone other than as good as mine your honor if if someone i suppose was looking specifically for that product and didn't have other access to it they might go to the  websites of child craft or other educational supplier providers and internet search term i just don't know we don't know there's nothing in the record on that issue he dealt with this issue in connection with the overall lanham act claims under section eleven twenty five which is to say he concluded correctly that the has not protected will and even if it were protective ball there is no likelihood of confusion those holdings remain and you know our eyes remain valid even  up connection with the search term issue on the website he said accordingly plaintiff's evidence fails to show the first essential element under fifteen u s code eleven twenty five namely that there's been somewhat of a moving target as to what provisions of eleven twenty five we're talking about in this case but if if we're dealing with it there's been an introduction now for the first time of an deceptive or false advertisement of eleven twenty five still requires a showing of likelihood of confusion one in secondary meaning and second while secondary meaning as part of that i mean the the likelihood of confusion implicates the strength of the seat sac mark and the mark has no strength and all one reason why people might go to trial the grass website and search for a seat sack is because plaintiff engaged in a marketing effort almost from the inception of its company to associate the seat sac name with child crack and then there's no evidence that anyone actually did such a thing but it is important to keep in mind that the mess representation about the nature character etc of any goods when a search term on a website or only doesn't say as it's data because the other polls apart i'm sorry it didn't say our product is better because that's right there's no disparagement of the seats act there's no false representation i thought you agreed earlier that there could be a lamb that i can use one person's name to attract customers to that there has to be secondary meaning not your own i'm just considering a situation where somebody uses a protectable mark trade name to drop people into a website uses the name coca cola for example the drive people into a website to make sales there could be a lanham act violation that's not our case here that was that was all i was saying in response to your most strict court said that pla we started this action two thousand and seven the websites were still being used my client testified and submitted affidavits that the city of newark had contacted her it then said that you're submitting  and two thousand and seven several million dollars for made by the police and we had a few hundred dollars from the name of that mission with respect to the eleven twenty five claim it apple we entered into a partnership agreement with a l you're not referring to an agreement different from the basic contract are you is there some other agreement that's not in the there it both are in the bracket one page was in the waste being signed by my client the second page talked about partnership agreement on the form submitted by the