is being a republican harmed by the preliminary injunction that issued in the absence of a stay in the court below we submitted to declarations one from a founder of be amazing rene whitney as well as from its c e o stephen fine and both explorations explained that for the last fifteen years the amazing is invested millions of dollars promoting advertising and really building up the goodwill in the products that have been just well we wrote to the court and if not what why not sure when there were two orders the st order that issued was on october th and we wrote to the court and we raised many of the issues that we raise a stay so can you explain why we should overlook that ordinary requirement right it was impracticable for us to do it the court had given us just three days to comply with the injunction we've already asked for more and more and to do that the court said  no in its nd order we asked the court to you know to clarify the order to post about the court and he said no to that there's been many products that are enjoying that we believe should not have been joined that we discuss in our brief to this court court said no and so given the circumstances that the court agreed said no too much of the relief we're asking for here today we thought it would be impracticable given time constraints we're on their side but it doesn't take too much to just request a stay and i'm  concerned that you didn't do that and i'm also concerned that we have been subject to a flood of additional motions and i asking us to take notice of additional evidence that the district court may or may not have seen  right all right so the evidence is all that in the record and frankly there's been too much to keep track of and it's all in the record everything that we've submitted to you is in the record below right now likewise had come in the form of a motion to supplement the record site i think it's been presented to us in the form of a motion to supplement the record why is that because this was new evidence that was not available at the time that we made our motion to stay and we wanted to submit it so that it all relates to the  amazing is that it was before the district yes it wasn't as before that the district court so we're not really supplementing the record i'm sorry that's true and we wanted to make sure that this evidence was before you that's correct i apologize ok and  say you would suffer irreparable harm presumably or adversarial say they would separable irreparable harm as well and that's what the proceedings below are about consumer confusion is the issue would be an expedited briefing ninety five percent it's not receiving any customer orders all of the relationships with our customers or our damage the injunction came on the eve of the holiday season after pending for say seven months or so and our customers have walked away and if if we're not able to repair those relationships and fulfill some of the needs while the holiday season still going on we may never see those customers again and quite frankly frankly with our sales down ninety five percent be amusing as a result of this injunction is now on the  be amazing i've been selling these products for fifteen years on their license agreement and when the agreement expired does actually a provision in the agreement itself provision and what it says is that when their agreement expires be amazing  the amazing from selling everything even the products are just not what when the license agreement expired we offered one hundred percent of our products that use the marks in issue and or just came back they only wanted forty percent the other sixty percent because it said we can't well they can't be irreparably harmed by those sales because they're authorized we paid a royalty for them the court didn't consider any of that and we think it's there's no reparable and they're getting they're getting the money that they're entitled to under the agreement thank you for in your honour's my name is edward maloof along with my colleague jeremy schachter we represent the apple leaves really good stuff i think the cord should not deviate from his formal procedure and should require certainly what the rules require and one isn't that a request for be a thirty day would include i think the day that we're here well certainly there was a fly as as the court already has observed there was a flood of motion practice after the injunction including this motion for dress the issues of the irreparable harm to my client if i could because here we have terminated license see that is seeking to extend a license perhaps judge stan was concerned that here we were ten months plus after the injunction after the license had terminated which is january st is when the license terminated and now we're going to october and now the terminated licensee is still seeking to yet further extend the license after having been  heard by the district court the opponents your honour's submitted four rounds or briefing including a sorceror apply they submitted three letters to the district court after the st injunction seeking clarification the court below carefully heard that's not inconsistent with their view that this injunction will destroy their business why would an agitated to the contrary there since they're a terminated licensee who have a long line of other products this is one license that they've got where they in certain ways and that there's some ambiguity in the contract required and how the license was applied that's what the litigation was about that's what the litigation exactly was about and the interpretation of the so called consent letter which frankly your honor should not be heard on an emergency basis on the basis of hastily prepared opposition papers that are currently before the court i'm willing and prepared to deal with this on appeal on until october basis and to the extent your honour's is suggesting an expedited schedule i'm current i'm certainly agreeable to that and have no objection to it but you know basically preparing an opposition within twenty four hours and on this record i think it would be perhaps inconsistent with the findings below especially given the wide berth the court must give the district court you challenge that always goes to the trademark owner who loses good will as above been posted that matter is currently pending before the district court should but there has not been a bond posted jay correct in other words the district judge has asked for have requested a four million dollars bond your which honestly if it's a if it's the value of the entire business that's certainly to judge shakeups point that's not the value of the entire business they are not going to go out of business if it's just a four million dollars bond really talking about their inventory allegedly their sales allegedly but has nothing to do with their entire product line their product line is much greater than just what my client was providing under a license i think i think your honor on this basis they are not likely to find that they're not likely to demonstrate any error any abuse of discretion by the district judge especially a district judge who has had more than sixty plus trademark cases in his career he knows