simple the appeal in this instance focuses on the court's award for the claims under false designation of origin and unfair competition and then also they state claim which is a misappropriation of trade secrets now as i noted the complaint was initially filed in early two thousand and fifteen the case was tried in march of two thousand that there was a long delay and issuing a decision i think that has some bearing on this case because it seems apparent that they district court forgot what a lot of the evidence is  the that was something that was contested at trial whether that was trade secret information and just we're not contesting that now in this new deal but what i would want to know from the court is that there was no evidence at trial to indicate that mr contributors had actually left did the entire database from alice that was not that was not a finding  between the exterior and at last that ceased as of december of two thousand and fourteen when he left employment there there's no indication that those type of certainly have the potential for creating confusion and did i answer your question there we all i think so but i wish it was really that actual you know this actual confusion prior to in an e mail to one of our customers by the name of dane yon and that customer information that information about bain young well he presented further on here as well but yes that there was one instance briefs about what was sold when it was sold and you're on of the focus here and i can i can move on and get to those points but when it when it comes to the fosters a nation of origin an unfair competition  n as your ears as you're aware there is a significant damages award of six hundred and ninety four thousand dollars and change plus reasonable attorney's fees now what a plane to pass to  proof when they're forwarding a claim for false designation of origin they need to establish that the defendant made false or misleading representation representations descriptions and designations of origin  two that the deception was likely to cause confusion among or merely prudent consumers as to the origin of the defendant's goods and the defendant's affiliation with the plaintiff or the plain disapproval of those  additional elements or that the defendant cause the deception to enter into commerce and that the plaintiff was damaged by deception now the issue here is that there was no evidence at trial to indicate that there was confusion among customers as to the origin of defendants goods or defendants affiliation with plaintiff or the by disapproval of defendants goods after two thousand or in two that wasn't included in the court's decision is one of those e mails that was where there was an actual confusion expressed but the record also demonstrated that there was no confusion  thing but they're different products now dame young had been purchasing fetal plus which is a proprietary product and at last i had not been purchasing fetal bovine serum in fact damien was even trying to the other thing that i want to point out when it comes to the issue today is that baby i was one of the customers who purchased some mislabeled serum product as well now i relationship between atlas and at most customers that well that's that's not correct st off when it comes to when it comes to beyond that sort that's a customer that to any evidence in the record to indicate that any customer was somehow confused as to confused by the mislabeling as to some relationship between a act the the damages resulting from some deception or confusion as to a relationship between those parties there was no evidence whatsoever at trial to indicate that that was the  the challenge is is that there was just no evidence presented in any way to indicate that that was the case that any customer was confused as to this product being related to that lesser or a connection between the company that this is a really interesting point for one reason i want to be sure to bring up and that's that's the standard of review here if you read judge or boyos opinion carefully you realize that the analysis of the mislabeling relates to judge or goes decision on damages and this is really really important because the you know recently i believe it was in the  those decisions are based on an abuse of discretion review and here you have all terrains of evidence that support a reasonable basis for the court to make a decision discourse you know the amount of discourse but if i understand correctly she specifically found that there was an unfair competition and false designation of origin predicate for liability based on the mis labeling of the origin of this law and i do not understand just so could i give you a chance to walk me through it of why the fact that peak serum was selling this label most customers what was it about that in this way billing of the origin of the lot that created confusion when most customers you've got the two thousand and fourteen emails i understand that's creates confusion i understand what you call hijacking or using the google plus i understand that well i don't understand how it insinuates a relationship with that list that he this designated the law in which he problems and this isn't as clearly articulated as might like in the district court's opinion but the st prong is you know generally referred to as a false association prong and that's where you get into the issue with the e mails the google plus account those things the nd prong is a false advertising problem now yet the careful about that phrase false advertising because it's a little bit over inclusive if you if you look at the language there because geographic origin of his or her of goods and that's where this mislabeling issue is really significant because in this industry it's critically important  its go ahead and then it's explorable but then if you turn around and you fill that lot with a bunch of other server you've lost the ability as a consumer of that product to actually know what the geographic origin quantities of product available at any given time and so if i'm a customer and i go to you and you say hey you know i've got  and you say hey i need six hundred liters but i've only got two hundred liters of korean eligible surname and i say yeah i can still your order and then i mislabel it so i can sell you a six hundred bottles or who knows what that's where the damage terms in this is this is you know referencing the pompom wonderful case you can have mislabeling that causes damage to a competitor because it will induce a consumer to purchase something that's different what they what they say and this is a really clear example of that because you have an ordered that gets bill because it's mislabeled because there's a volume there  find it and these customers that we're talking about are all atlas customers all atlas customers may have been had a history of making purchases from atlas of the product that's used for the same purpose all culture about you know there's been a lot of attention paid to this one discrete issue of mislabeling but really you know that the lion's share of the damages in this case relate to the st prong related to the likelihood of confusion and you know there's the case that discusses statutory standing for plaintiff far and what you have here in this case is you have many misrepresentations and if you review the record in its entirety you will see that and you will see that the court the trade secrets or some requirement that has to do with taking custom or taking database information taking sales history you have to look at the whole ball of wax here to really understand what happened here was a multi pronged attack by katrina because against atlas that included making misrepresentations included falsely equating his company to atlas included trademark infringement included misappropriating customer lists customer sales information and then using all of that information to take business from outlets and when you look at it in context you can clearly and that also leads to another and other issue which is that the porous media case and many other cases really with and trademark and trade secret jurisdiction indicate that if you engage in one of the things that you see in causation cases across the board is we have a willful act there is a presumption of causation another issue and you know mr ward alluded to it as well you know what about atlas terminating one of the you know about four or five dozen customers that are at issue in this case well you know if you look at the record you'll see that was in the context of this trying to get a straw purchase set up with another customer and then when dan young comes out of the blue and suddenly wants to order the proprietary product when they had gone silent for a while it made atlas fearful that that was what was going on and that's another innocently act in a way to protect itself you don't have an interruption of causation in that situation so you know overall i think that the most important thing in this case is to remember that the standard of review here for the damages issue is the abuse of discretion standard but for the other facts it's that we are standard and under both of those standards is so much evidence in this record showing that what mr purist did was intentional it was desired and that it had its intended effect he got a huge about twenty five to thirty percent of atlases business th do we have any actual debate or maybe we do have to say whether or not our appeal involves the amount of attorney fees that has subsequently been awarded by the district court no your honor i don't think that it c and the reason for that is the door of attorney's fees was actually entered after the original notice of appeal in this case was filed and no subsequent notice of appeal on the attorney for word was ever filed and certainly the only question as far analyzed under a false designation of origin theory then you would concede that mr warner is correct that there is no evidence to support a false designation of origin by virtue of associating the business labeling of origin of this law with atlas but if we analyze it into a false advertising theory there is evidence to support what judge are said on page thirty one is that in my business aiding it or is it your final take on you know your honor i think that you can you can analyze it and and i see my time is up but will you allow me to answer your question right yes i think that there are there are really three modes would that could potentially get you to the same result on that issue the st one is under that false advertising problem because we're essentially or excuse me under the the false association proxy so what you're doing is you're inducing a customer to purchase a product because you're saying look you know it comes from it's us origin product or it has certain biochemical a certain biochemical profile is indicated on the label and when you do that you potentially you are taking business from a nother seller in this case atlas because you have all d of the of us these are customers that came out of that database information that was taken by katrina that's all referenced in that summary spreadsheet that rule one hundred and six summary spreadsheet that's in the record and so you can you can easily make that conclusion under the st product based on that the nd issue is the damages analysis remember that if you know you can find that there was a likelihood if you can find that there was a false association liability and then get to the stage of evaluating damages and look  situation look at the mislabeling and all cabinet within principles of equity make a determination that this is a fair way to enhance the damages based on the circumstances  does not exist and i welcome you to review the entire record because you as well say that it does not exist when it comes to mr it indicated a couple of a couple of cases that  five and there's nothing like that that occurred in this case where we're talking about an ongoing effort to gain sales from you how they are similarly in the poorest case which  with mr root has referenced again that's a that was a serious systematic concerted effort to disparage courses products and make false comparisons between the defendants product and courses product i mean those those are the type of misrepresentations and advertising campaigns those just didn't occur in this situation where they misrepresentation