this case raises the issues surrounding the federal trade market lieschen act it also brings to the fore how that actually be applied when a famous mark is also an english difference here and what the district court did yes absolutely your honor in what way and what should we do about that what it means is that the district court applied the wrong substantive law the district court applied the likel do they need to show actual dilution what evidence will be seen need to show actual dilution they need to show something other than a perception by people that these the army officer in question the army officer who essentially ratted out pictures of little secret to victoria's secret he noted that the army officer did not have any different impression  back to my answer to the question now what needs to what needs to be he said has an additional hurdle here as i indicated before and that hurdle has to do with this this vilks in clearing the gap in other carolina both of those cases are different in this respect those are both cybersquatter cases and there was a particular person who was in the business if you will issue of whether there's actual dilution of whether the party services are similar or not is not a factor in determining whether there's a solution might be relevant i'm not sure how it would be relevant and i'm not aware of any  goes out to the web and brings in information when someone conducts a search term their arguments like saying that google is in the business of everything because you can search for anything on google but there's really no evidence that they ever used  three reasons one is the first like to discuss what mostly means to the extent we can understand what the supreme court seems to create a dichotomy between cases in which the marks of issue are general cases in which the doesn't serve any source identifying function and that when people see the letter he they ascribe no source identifying substance to it just maybe circumstantial evidence right and i'm not really sure what that sentence means does that mean that you can't use circumstantial evidence to prove dilution when the marks are not identical i think it would be unlikely for any court to hold that you can use circumstantial evidence it's because we're all consumers i think we understand very easily what he's talking about that's why i think it makes perfect sense and i don't think the next step would be to do a survey and survey would have to b two thousand because they were we don't know how or they're going to use that we kept watching to see how they were going to use it and when they started using it as a trademark and then file trademark applications to the registry the so and then opposed our friend mark applications frankly that's that's the whole point of the district court paid no attention to the context in which the word piece of might be understood or the way the word used to mark might be understood part  confusion because i'm not sure i handled that question pat well in a trademark infringement context the presence of evidence of actual confusion is a factor it is not necessarily as determin factor it is a factor similarly in trademark lucian contests it can certainly be factor on long some of the other things that would amount to circumstantial evidence of the factual pollution