very similar and unique mark both parties represent a interest or had represented the interest and a stylized more interesting because face it again we have an interesting case where it was no longer president the case and the government motion was made six months after the default judgment and the true mark were concluded that amount of time was too long and so outside of the excusable neglect question and as an initial matter if you look at appendix from seven when the board starts to begin discussing about the reasonable time period the standard that they set in places is a relief from judgment under federal rule so it was sixty b is an extraordinary remedy to be granted discretionary only in exceptional circumstances so that was in between when they begin discussing about this in a reasonable time period there is no court that world weary with that sets forth what a quorum what a reasonable period of time irrespective of that argument the circumstances in this case are that the the appellant really had no knowledge of the opposition to a much later point in time and that is something i'd like to clarify in this case leave what the actual characterization or honor is that she had no knowledge before may th that's the time that the judgment was entered it was not that she knew about it on may th when she learned about it before she retained new counsel i take it she learned about that her application was abandoned that's the new wants here is that she only knew she's not sophisticated party as far as trademark rules or regulations was no intent by her to violate any regulation she acted diligently in this case by retaining new counsel and she hired  her nd counsel as another transactional attorney the only thing that she knew for certain that it that is in the record is that her trademark application had been abandoned she didn't understand the rationale behind it or the word and then there's no affirmation that she understood that there was a notice proceeding only that her application was abandoned so she hired another transactional trademark attorney to then refile her trademark application had she understood it's very clear at that point and with a large sum of money she's now spent to get to this point that she would have hired a litigation attorney more than likely if she knew that had some idea then opposition were seen had gone on you know as a lay person should receive them postcard in the mail that her trademark application had been abandoned so she hired a new attorney to file another trademark application and so that maybe if i'm remembering the facts from please clarify them for me but i it's my recollection that notice was sent to her attorney of record and that she alleges that she did not receive that notice from him and that he was not going to continue to represent her in you know for example the opposition proceeding is that right there's a little bit of a disconnect there your honor i think that we're not getting the full story from prior counsel and frankly i don't think we ever will since there's an accusation by appellant to her prior counsel for some malfeasance and so i don't we don't believe in an attorney is going to make a statement one way or the other but the two identified i mean clearly i think that if if he's attorney of record  there's no way that we could say that he did not receive likely notice from the board of the opposition proceeding what we're saying is that repel it is a saying that she actually never received the notice when it was sent to that counsel a rd party had twenty seven thousand mr or corollas allegedly sent me a copy of the notice of opposition because of personal matters attributable to both to my health i was physically unable to inform the sanders about the opposition or provider a copy of the opposition i mean to me that sounds like he is acknowledging that he received it and he is also proclaiming that due to some health problems on a specified health problem he was unable  transmit that information to his friend this saunders and again your honor there is and then he doesn't talk about the other notices i mean there was a show cause order on march th two thousand and seventeen there was the prosecution of the application but isn't the burden on years to establish not only the reasonableness of the overall delay and filing the sixty motion but ultimately why the failure to w with diligence in this case shows that she didn't know because she says to her reps the representation by her attorney ended when the notice for a physician was filed but she didn't notify the p t o that she didn't notify the p t o that the attorney no longer represented her so when they sent him a notice of abandonment why doesn't that fault fall on her fault lies in terms of whether there's an excusable delay or neglect here why she had an obligation to notify the office if if her counsel changed and she didn't just like if she moved if she moved right and they sent it to old address and there was a delay in having it forwarded to her you know what why isn't she respond she says her attorney says to represent her but she never notified the office of that so they sent all of these notices to that attorney you're absolutely right your honor she is responsible but that's the neglect standard she did assume a duty over her application at that point own st trademark application until when were unsure when that day was probably because of a three hundred and thirty seven her affidavit a paragraph seven says she discovered the existence of the opposition after notice from the i read paragraph seven a saying that she knew about the opposition once she received the notice that her application to become abandoned so that would be in may because obviously the new application by mr grant was filed when june watt so that's a clarification your honor that what's a clarification the clarification is that she knew that her trademark application had been abandoned but not to the causation of that item until after much later we couldn't pinpoint an exact date after may when she determined that there was a that was a she then she discovered the existence of the opposition against her trademark application after paragraph seventy one dollars when her application become abandoned that wasn't right paragraph seven doesn't say what it says and when did she discover that there was once upon a time a natural opposition and with a default judgment against her initial trademark application we don't have an exact date your honor but we believe it's during the period of time when her secondary counsel notice from the p t o that the trademark had become banned and the notice itself of abandonment refers to proceedings at the trademark trial of appeal board so i don't think this these two paragraphs can be read to kind of escape the june nd filing of the nd application which she immediately did at the risk receiving that notice so i think the only reasonable inference from that is that that's when she got a notice of the proceeding and then there are period going to judge chen's questions about the reasonableness of the time there's a period in which june july august september and october and then to the middle of november with no explanation of why there was any reason why they didn't file the motion to reopen the case during that period of time there's zero explanation of that there really was no basis for the board to find that it was filed as a written to show within a reasonable time and so for that reason alone  requires a firm is under the abuse of discretion standard here the nd thing is there are a lot of gaps i'm not sure exactly whether that i don't think that the barber affidavit is really relevant because he's not the client so it's almost like that's a sort of a side show because it never really gets tied to either the duty of mr morales as the attorney or what mr sanders did so i died i view that as something that really doesn't play on this at all we're looking not just at what miss sanders did she it's not a pro se kind of a thing where there's no lawyer involved once and lawyers involved are looking also at the actions inactions and circumstances surrounding what the lawyer did and didn't do and there is absolutely nothing here to show that mr morale us was diligent at all we don't know why he didn't answer the notice of opposition we don't know why he didn't answer the notice of default we don't know why he didn't immediately move to get set aside the judgment of default there's nothing here to show either that what he did was in the glassed because it's not just you have to show willfulness it also has to be neglect and so you have we don't know why but didn't miss sanders allege that he no longer represented her after the publication of her trademark that's in her brief i don't know if so i mean but but i don't i don't see why assuming that is true her through it all because it was what the board added to the factors that considered in deciding whether her neglect was excusable or not because they said if true you didn't notify us that change of counsel or you know firing of your counsel or discontinuation or whatever also we kept sending notices to him right it was it was incumbent upon mr morale is to let the board know that he was withdrawing from representing the applicant once it reached whatever point he had agreed with her that his representation would cease and he did not do that sworn statement to this effect but there is a statement in the brief that mr morale is had told her that his representation would end you know once any opposition was filed and if she knew that i think as of one of the questions earlier pointed out if she knew that there was  in upon her in that unusual circumstance to pay attention to what was going on and find out when that point was reached so she would know either a i have to represent myself now we're b i need to go and get another attorney to do this part of the process and there's nothing that explains what she did during that time to fulfill that duty to kind of monitor that unusual situation with her st attorney essentially what the what this is there's just not enough here for the board to have found in her favor on either reasonable this or that the in the galactic was excusable because no real excuse was proffered just some bare bones statements of what i can actually disagree with you on whether i think there's enough that i still have to affirm you know that's right there's nothing in your view was abused discretion right there's nothing that would indicate that the board abused its discretion here if there are no further questions i back curious about information systems and and one reading of information of this is that we have an applicant has to be willful in failing to meet certain deadlines in order for the board to conclude that there was an excusable michael and so almost any information systems differently i think you have to read information systems in the context of what the claims court held and what that made the issue before this court in that and basically the claims court has had held that once counsel has notice of a particular deadline and fails to do anything that is that in itself is willful conduct and so there was a lot of discussion of what constitutes willful conduct and what doesn't constitute willful conduct which was very very specific issue in that case but the broader issue here is not that rule sixty b one only requires the negation of willful conduct it also has to be conduct that can be considered neglect and that neglect has to be excused that really wasn't an issue in information systems because it really was just a simple matter of whether or not that broad willfulness test of the claims court used was correct or not and it wasn't i mean those those facts are there even if it's a scienter of facts at the end still there this requires as information says just a minor just a minor abuse of discretion to to reverse the decision this case and going back in information systems i think one of the key elements here that's been overlooked in our discussion has been the fact of the weight given to the three prongs you know and again as i started off in this and this oral argument the fact that there is a mentor notorious defense that there is no prejudice so the appellee in this case or and or the opposing party in the in the case below and those two factors have for some reason received very little weight that it looks like the entire weight of this case has been excusable but the let which we believe the appellate has clearly showed in this case there is no