district court level there were two distinct sets of claims that my client was pursuing the first that concerned my client's client claims the unfair competition trademark infringement granting the police motion i first like to address the area trademark infringement unfair competition and third business practices and most striking in that is that the court quarter that my client had not presented sufficient evidence of secondary meaning you know the name crew or the name cruz california cheats but as i pointed out more explicitly in my reply brief appellee did not move the court on the motion issue on whether my client lacked sufficient evidence or secondary meaning in the names cruiser cruz california she's in fact the discussion of whether there was a generic foreign was entitled to protection except for at that time because again the focus was not on secondary meaning and those moving papers my client didn't prepare decorations which i believe would sufficient address that that decided on the issue of secondary meaning we would have undertaken market surveys would have pointed our evidence gathering in that direction to show that even though the generic term or what the court found to be the generic term california cheese protected correct that there is still confusion when you have a more discreet in other words you don't have any protection in california she's so so essentially at least seems to me you're saying that there's is geared towards recent immigrants the united states who don't maybe have the association and we would have a future native californians are native i understand that and i don't have any problem that that what you're the law of the case says that california cheese isn't entitle to protection so so what you're protecting is is california cheese plus the plus being karun and saying the customers are likely to be confused by similarity between are marketing a extremely similar product to the exacting market which the court noted in its a prior ruling and based on those factors the court previously ruled which we agreed with that there was a tribal issue of like confusion so in addition to the one piece of direct evidence we also again presented several items of circumstantial evidence using those factors and we agreed with this of course prior ruling that there was going to keep going back to the prior ruling but unfortunately the district court didn't wind up there though we did it and one of the things that i regret is that if you get a chance to discuss that with the just record at oral argument why it had or don't focus on california and maybe you can properly say we should pay more attention to california but the law of the family type names don't seem very similar so worth the likelihood of conversion you want as i understand the law as i read it you show you to look at the trademark distributing a product that contains a trade secret that was misappropriated and that's all they get to say if we have to take the product off the shelf well at least do something or other and this i think is a little bit different as we're talking  district court and the substance of which was this person gave very specific detail that this person is a ship in this misappropriate our trade secret you're selling it we're i'm paraphrasing your selling it we're suing this person that that's still the belief of your client correct it's not independent evidence from which craig you knew or should have known that it was misappropriating a trade secret but that's you see the distinction i'm making of the problem let's say that as i think is the case your creation had a distribution contract they would have breached that contract if they'd stop distributing the product so the only way they're on the hook is if somehow they know that what they're doing is wrong and the only which anyone had ever brought a claim on the theory that that was enough to show a violation that the company did knowingly distributed the stolen who own recipe  cola and i go to some bottle or and say here's a sample i've never looked inside but i want you to make the stuff then sell it to me i'm going to sell it big time an somebody avoid liability for misappropriation simply by keeping the information inside the envelope because he can't use it anyway he can't make cocaine and potentially your client can't make cheese but if you get the information to the person that can make she's going to be liable for back to the facts you think apply to the situation but in terms of what the states you can cover is and i think that this is a somewhat harder challenge because that makes this more of a factual than a legal determination in fact all the terminations are trickier in summary judgment answer is i think twofold number one there's an absence of authority to expand the statutes in the scenario such as that here which is not the recipe in the arms loping presented may have his own reasons and i don't like the feeling that she's i think that's the person of the chain acquired by improper need to sufficient to show that you have a knowledge or a well founded police that there's something wrong going on that is a problem jerry there's no problem here and so even if you were to indulge inside maybe under serious circumstance let's assume that if they knew there was something wrong there could be liability here's my suggesting that they don't like this very or that they may be up to them wrong is not enough to mean that we have knowledge of they have to trade secrets so even if we're walking down that road your honor please understand i don't real california cheese certification mark really wasn't an issue in this case really has no bearing so there are products which had a name real california cheese on them but that's just a certification mark by a government agency but doesn't that suggest it's difficult to build a case for confusion focusing on california because the phrase california cheese in some context is widely used by lots of other products it's not necessarily use and this is where we disagree with this report it is actually used by products it's really an program limited verses five