face court the issue because we see it in this matter gets distilled down at this point to one of the application of the natural expansion doctrine the vast majority of the record evidence in this case concerning for them in the community in case my recollection was you have in fact you're right there are not identical marks there and in fact the question was look that competition and then from the competition they looked at whether or not bridging the gap in canadian i believe that but that's not you right that is that is not the case here here we have we have a registration here is in terms of the lewdness of the goods like to answer a question the answer is in coming to what we're looking at here is a very specific fact pattern based on the case law that that we've looked at which is where you have identical marks different lines of goods the natural expression doctrine should apply that's where they ended full stop but it's not whether they're going to expand whether in the minds of the public read that that was the test and you can apply that same test in the and to the extent that it can but it also is directly it it is a political in the priority argument certainly that's where it comes from that's where we carried it over into the relatedness of the goods because we see we see  similarities are we have a situation of identical marks different lines of goods and in that context would have been natural for the tea group who had not used to have an expanded beyond clothing for thirty so i think of maybe other points but what the factors here our you know what we think that should should've gone on was the bird asked the right question so i mean it can ask are the goods related and they can do that in context of the expansion doctrine they can ask whether the purchaser would reasonable really believe the goods emanate from the same source it can do that in the context of the expansion doctrine and has done and it has done it before computer analysis what are our contention is when applying the expansion doctrine especially in this case where you have a mark that never expanded were you can sing never did not expand for much of it life the application of the expansion doctrine is appropriate because all of it because we were nine hundred ninety nine eighty us cation and seven years later still we  the sudden that we're going to expand into this into this new area or we're going to oppose or mark for that reason in our opinion that was improper now so we need to look at what was appropriate in the  first of all counsel said that we were arguing that we were going to expand well that is one of the issues that was raised the proper by craig's counsel says it is sufficient that the product or related in some manner and or sold under conditions that right are likely to be encountered by the same person under circumstances that give rise to the mistaken belief that they originate from or in some way associated with the same producer and the point here is what should be looked at is the registration and the goods in the registration applicants good in its application and you think it you argue that it's completely irrelevant that the mark had been used only for such limited purposes for so many years i'm sorry what was it we said in canadian lumber or canadian for the interim the case is to say that case being one of them that you look at the goods in applicants application as the delineated in there's no restrictions in that and you look at the goods in the opposers registration and there's no restrictions in that or if the  canadian correctly the court is saying it's identical we just look at the more but if the goods are not identical it's more of a different goods and we have to look beyond the scope of the mark and then to big that specifically states that when the marks are the same or virtually the say that there are only needs to be a buyable relationship between the goods and the graded digitally degree of similarity of the marks the less of the degree you needed and similar similarity excuse me of the goods in this case the goods are virtually identical i'm saying the maps are virtually identical what they're finding on in that respect is correct and i think there's a step saying child case law supporting that point and that the goods do not need to be identical because again you're looking to what the public believes and we have in the record numerous companies have registrations for both type of goods we have actually used evidence where we had the marking person went shopping and we presented evidence that these types are goods or sold under the same brand and then also internet evidence and we had for example our own big there's evidence in the record  pens and then it's also used for addresses and wallets so consumers are used to seeing the same mark on these various type of goods in addition there's no evidence in the record and  to the extent that the appellant tries to argue that you should or they look to one particular factor there's no evidence of that in the record that there's any basis for that distinction is applied in the context of priority none of the cases that are cited by mr craig or used in this type of situation not only is it normally used in the case of priority but it's the junior market's not in use the doctrine let's hypothetically back in toying to see what the situation would have been  in addition proper press or mccarthy specifically stated that the theory of natural expansion appears to be no more than a specific application of the familiar related goods test and it seems to be an unnecessarily complicated application applied to a specific situation in this case the board properly looked at all the evidence before it and didn't limit the goods and in fact there is i believe it is as testimony in the record of additional applications being filed by kenneth cole so there is certainly plans for expansion and then as for we bring up the test again of do the goods emanate from the same source to the to the public and the relatedness of the goods in both those both those questions can again