because the coalition does not raise funds we don't solicit funds we don't obtain funds from as a from any candidates for that from the general public and in general the second argument that i will be addressing is whether or not is not applied we believe you're honest because the trademark of the coalition is not used in commerce of the sale of goods and services and it's only used in the context of a dos and candidates for political office that thank you i did not interrupt you whatever this thing is it cost something to print how is that paid for because you say you don't raise money it's paid for by another co operation that's not a political organisation and it's the same we only do one one at concerts all we can afford with the same message and on the on the front of it it says paid for by the coalition for better government and what we have  y looking somewhat like a hawk when we went to trial in this case some summary judgment was granted the court never gave us a chance to prove to prove that the alliance's mark was not distinctive it clearly isn't because  hawk an eagle a birds of prey that they pretty much all look alike why don't we have a heart because i hope watches and we want something we want people in want to know that somebody is watching over the city ok and you're saying in our way three thirty five this document put up a large amount of money just to get the endorsement we accept no money from any campus we just don't we just a good government group that's all we do is it your position it is a matter of law to land a marriage does not apply to nonprofit organ that is my position no nonprofit organization and united way well well somebody can somebody can take a logo of the united way and mimic it and make it almost exactly the same such that people would not be confused and put it out there in the lanham act simply doesn't apply because it's a nonprofit now that you are saying if it's a nonprofit that doesn't solicit funds from the public and doesn't actually go out to do things like that we say that it doesn't apply  and the united we stand case out of the second circuit that was commercial activity they were raising money for ross perot and we now do that we did do some shepherd i think i'm not a trademark lawyer have to tell your outs that i'm not going to do the best in favor of the so called called infringer if you look at that case because they said that the so called infringing had no business purpose justice a coalition doesn't have a business purpose so it's so i'm going i'm reading from  united we stand second circuit reading from page ninety of the opinion and it says quote any political organization that adopts the platform and endorses candidates under trade performs a valuable by the supreme court and i mean as i recall they don't they they don't require sort of in the exchange of money necessarily require you know more of a i guess i guess the issue is whether or not free speech is covered under the law in ok well i was going to ask you about that because it wasn't clear to me if you were making a stand aloof free speech what is your free speech argument with respect to the best this is our best if you concern over the courts putting applies where it's likely to cause confusion or to cards a mistake but to see if that's jumping ahead of the summary judgment i'm talking about you said it's free speech and i agree that you have the right to free speech but but very that's a separate issue here earlier you were saying it can't by now you're saying they didn't meet their burden i mean if you did the exact same ad but you called yourself citizens for a better government and had a koala bear as your animal they may not come i mean that it's not the rest of it it isn't this vote for judge paula brown part that they're upset with it's the it's the logo and they're saying that the confusion here is there might be people who think the alliance for a better government is in fact an entity they care about they care about their endorsement and so if they see this they think that's what that is and so they go vote for paula brown thinking the alliance told them to do it in turns out it wasn't the alliance it was the coalition and vice versa maybe people respect the coalition really want to do what the coalition directs and then they that they see an alliance ad think that saying that's the point of confusion that people follow these voters are not necessarily but they might be influenced by these that's the whole reason you do it is you're trying to influence voters to vote the way you think they should want to infuse influence on or not fun which point to me in the record evidence that creates a genuine issue of material fact on confusion ok nowhere is that the judge i'm sorry but the judge that the judge barbier found there's no genuine issue of fact i'm likely to confusion because of all of the different in this show so point point to me just evidence in the summary judgment record that says no he was wrong there is a genuine fact issue on likelihood of conflict point himself said on page twenty nine of the proud transcript no evidence of confusion this is the judge himself saying this and the defendants agree if you look at page you mean actual confusion no up no evidence of that to conceal evidence of somebody coming and going i voted for the coalition guy because i thought it was an alliance guys that's what that saying right but this there's no evidence of that right is that it is that's not the only in the issue that we look to to see likely of confusion right i put we have others but with that there are obvious but we think that that's a jury issue well i think i'd reading reading to district judge's comments it seems to me that what influenced him the most was the similarity between the two marks but but he also speak to that but he said the coalitions about a government it's the same thing as an alliance for good government and if you look at webster's dictionary the new different things a coalition is a group of individuals who band together and an alliance is a group of organizations so it is different so he knocked out exist not to protect trademarks but to protect the consuming public so this acts purpose of reducing consumer confusion supports application of the act to political speech where the consequences of widespread confusion as to the source of the speech to be done and that is what the united we stand case talks about well i get that but before we rush it to the purposes of the in america is there an in commerce requirement  therefore it is not its mark is not in commerce within the meaning of the women act if you could respond to that specific as well the first of all as far as implication of the commerce clause it's just an act just needs to be able to elected official i see one of them was president bush if that's not local but the restroom seem to be local judges in a local paper how does that affect interstate commerce can not just commerce it's all there interstate commerce but they're actually senators as well ok so you're saying because the politicians that they endorse are themselves federal officials that that is sufficient but that's fact they limited it to local judges would that change the outcome if they during regulations for local elections not in my experience no matter the federal government has legislated guns near schools yeah i'm not real successfully on some of that well some of it that's what i was getting at it if you could point to something tells me we're not writing on a blank slate here maybe in this circuit this is how we novel question but could you point me to some cases that have tried to flesh out you know what are the what are the calmer is what's your best case for that proposition nonprofit because that's different from what your change was talking about localism aspect well there's there's the the united states bases versus philadelphia jaycee raising versus not primaries she said all of those cases involve fundraising and i know that jaycee's does fundraising and certainly a lot of nonprofits to do fund raising even though the fund raising is for the purpose of not profit nonprofit and her group does not so she said that takes her out her group out of the calculus but that's incorrect based on the record the record does show that the coalition has purchased ties with space and has spent money say x charity ok i support x charity and i just buy that ad myself as the coalition for greatness and i haven't raised any money at all i just paid for it and that's what better government so that we can buy ads and that's maher they don't have enough money to buy flyers or whatever they don't do then you could have a situation where wealthy individual bought a bunch of ads saying that they are the republican party the democratic  that's the two to avoid confusion among the public as to source identification and while some of that is to prevent protect consumers from wrongfully spending money or wasting money on things that they don't want or or think that the comes from one source when it really comes from another and maybe inferior it seems it's all the more important when it comes to voters being can stu's the about ok what about is it really confusing well i know you've shown us a million times and we can look at it the details you want us to look at in that regard as to whether it's confusing good that better and good are similar concepts will the whatever she says coalition alliance mean different in the definition of the other word so i guess it depends on which dictionary you look at but i think i make any sense the sarras you would look at the bottom line what would satisfy your client for then to to mean clearly they're allowed to do this indorsing they're clearly allowed to by an adequately allowed to say this judge is better than that judge or this presidential candidate whatever what is it that they need to do differently how do they need to change their logo well that would need a different name and can't use good or better they can't use government and they can't use anything that implies a group and yet they're supposed to be endorsing candidates your honor that that's not what i said ok they can use government they could use good or better is used using those words in that in that order is is is almost exactly like the problem to me about that argument i understand about the hawk and the eagle and the look of the logo but to me the wording i mean better government good government best government those are exactly what you're talking about when you were a dorsenne candidates i hope few people want to run the coalition for a terrible government you know so unless that's a sarcasti thing but so the fact is that for us to say you're pretty hip at it from using those words seems a little bit extreme it does seem to be impinging on their first amendment rights it's instance those words in that order your honor and i good government i don't understand how that how you can prevent somebody those are normal terms that's exactly what people talk about when i was a candidate for and state court judge i spoke about good government i mean what the order if it was better government for the people it sounds a lot different but a lens for good government and coalitions a better government even the key to this is the same when you are can you tell me as a matter of trademark to rule that the coalition can no longer use the word go you know i don't you're asking us to affirm that there is no genuine issue of material fact on likelihood of confusion into marks that i have here that this is the ones that i got out of the record i mean the bird looks the same and made hockey go on i don't know it's a square the text looks the same the text is out is is the text is in the coalition for better government is your position it's it would be a violation of them are and they didn't say alliance for better government they said coalition for better governments of two of the three words the three key words are different and you're still challenging that if they said people for better government you would still challenge that scene you are trying to trademark the concept of out of the group a group that wants a better guy a good government you're trying to trademark that concept and i don't think you can i think that's too generic  degrees and same adjective and the fact that the words are in the same place and both marks they appear in the same place in the same order so even though you're talking a word mark of course it's not as striking as the actual design composite marks but even the word marks are very similar when you're talking about the order even the number of syllables the cadence if you know it's just very similar and ask you this so we've got an election coming up i hear in november  they obviously want to endorse candidates is it your position that the order in this case prevents them from using the phrase coalition for better government in any cont i don't know i'm a little bit you honestly i think your point on the mark the actual overall mark is a good one i think your point on the words is kind of taking it very far and very troubling to me because i think this is an area where we want we want people to be able to have their first amendment rights in the first memorizing saying my team cares about good government and we think judge x would be the better one for that i  when when you sense any reproduction counterfeit copy colorful imitation of a mark without the registrants consent in commerce in connection with the sale offering for sale distribution advertising of any goods with such is likely to cause confusion or to cause mistake or to deceive so that that last part of it that's certainly a jury issue and the judge says there was no confusion they agreed there wasn't any confusion people numbers no actual confusion granted an injunction not only on the mark but also in the name and that prohibits us from bringing out our ballot and participating in the judicial elections that are coming up in november and the dawson candidates not only that  sides arguments with our shape your time and we appreciate good and better government and the best government