underlying issues that you're raising are substantial evidence review issues for us so while maybe i would think wins and wins would potentially have a different appearance or a different well that's kind of hard to get around at that point so i guess my problem is you've made a lot of chords but so many of them didn't like similarity of the marks all devolve into something that we reviewed for substantial evidence and whether i would have decided that issue the first what same way in the through all of them and claim there is basically no substantial evidence for any of them but it doesn't feel right to me seven when you direct me to go the one you think is worse time in the ultimate issues one of law but you didn't spend as much time on that as you did on each little individual equal to our argument that there are that the names are not similar or the services are not the same and that we loose understand that so my argument is their argument is not what a reasonable person would believe because the truth likelihood of confusion and the reason i make that argument is i go back to the part judge markey i mean i love that case and  the problem is that p t o found that almost all of those factors went against you so how do you take a big picture look and say well even the one hundred year old factors you're supposed to look out weighed against you nonetheless there is the like that i don't agree that they way and that they don't play in my favor i believe that the law is suppose that the substantial evidence is that when you look at similarity of marks you look at the you compare the marks based on their appearance their sound their connotations and their commercial impression i give it to the p t o that went in when sounds like but when you look at the entirety of quinn's logic which is the language right at the disclaim to work a lot because it is descriptive it describes what the service is this so and you go right back to the lanham act and it says so so resembles a mark that connection to the goods that it is related to is likely to cause confusion in connection with the goods when's logic says it's a quince luch looking at the simulator similarity of services the services it says in dupont look at the registration in the application it says in the registration restaurant services in the app in the registration of says resort large services on the face of it i different absolutely different how can the p t o all of the sudden jump into third party registrations there's twelve women how can they jump into third eight web pages to no i don't believe that is true there are lodges that have restaurants there are lodges that don't have restaurants resort long resort lodge there are resort lodges in place to which persons resort diagrams and there's an overlap then it in my hands and sir yes no i understand that and you know i freak appreciate this this discourse the opportunity to talk to you it's a little more friendlier  al it's the same as the the examinee attorney i understand they're doing their job i understand they got a book that they were reading read and there they follow those and i say looking at the law coming from colorado and having the opportunity to argue this i've read the law and i take it for face value it's the plain language and i'm just mark he says we don't want the discretion that conjecture whether it's this or that to determine whether or not a trademark is given i think that is that is wrong and i think is that's that's why we you know fought so hard for this is that gwen's is a genuine legitimate mark it is entitle to trademark being smart enough i understand these last but as i understand a reasonable person from which is how you judge likelihood of confusion is whether or not a person is going to bleep the quins restaurant is associated with or the quince luch is associated with quince restaurant i think a reasonable person would say no and you confused that is yes likelihood likely to be confused actually comparing i don't see any evidence that they're looking to expand they've done this for thirty years and they have one location am i right correct ok and the other people have this when place in alaska and they've had one location and it's been there for thirty plus years as well the gifts these two things have never crossed paths in any way shape or form one of the things the p t o has said is that yeah but they could but it's true because when you seek a broad registration not a narrow registration it's possible that you might decide to now open up a wins in alaska right next door right and that's the problem the concern isn't what you're at each doing in the respective markets you're in now and have been doing for the last thirty years but if you ask her a broad registration the concern is you would then you could then literally open a restaurant next door to that other hotel and where the facts with a clearly different but you'd have the right to do it if they granted your registration so has has your client consider possibility of a much he will request for in terms of categorizing the services for example a very good question i asked her this morning in the cafeteria when and then after that and you decided no we want the general the general protection is what quins watch us but even if you are ok but they haven't sought to expand into your market so far right so yes so even if you do do and i don't know if they could because it would depend on who started first you know that their common law trademark rights that you both but they both possess right so it may well be that they can't especially after this decision would likely confusion if you will use diverse they might not actually be able to open an establishment near you because you have a geographic monopoly on that space if you started using it first but in any event you know no matter how this case turns out that is something you could consider doing if it doesn't turn out in your favor filing a new registration that is much your morning on this may please the court i just wanted to address one thing that counsel said in his state in his presentation he said that resort lodges don't serve food and that's contrary to things that were said in the records by his client is one of the point where those were first of all on the relationship between the goods between the services they said that the p t and i'm quoting now the p t o is correct in stating that from it's evidence resort lodging least as likely if not more likely that the restaurants would have their own independent and be operated by another entity other than the person who got the log there is evidence of course obviously that's true that wouldn't be the same coverage right you're only in the sense that people have more of accustomed to seeing the two offered together under the same market and as a result if they see the gwen's restaurant that will raise the question you have to assume that they've seen when's logic mark before that that will last that will raise the question in their mind whether there's a relationship between the two so there's there's not really the question i can see the p t o found unless i'm mistaken that people are accustomed i think they introduced  examples of lodges restaurants there and similar names and they're full concluded they could be looked at as related services but you just said something far stronger than that and it remind traveled i very seldom have come across a hotel where the restaurant bears the hilton restaurant doesn't sound that appealing to me you know i mean you very seldom do i come across a hotel where it doesn't have as our chief judge pointed out its own brand name even if it happens to be owned by the same source ultimately the on the record in this case there are eleven third party registration means entities that offer both resort lodging and restaurant services under the  same art and there's also evidence that of third party websites eight of them of companies that offer resort lodging and restaurant services under the same art that's what the record is in this case and i think they may put in four standalone restaurants including they're all but what that shows is that substantial evidence shows there are supports the notion that these goods and services are related and the test is in fact very similar to what they have minute and i ask you something is just a really technical basic question drew when the search is it done are you looking for well sides of this i mean to somebody go ahead and say ok we're looking for how many lodges and restaurants have the same did somebody look for how did is there any record evidence there by the examiner about how many and if you give us the number how many did you can what about how many generally the what the examining attorneys do and i can't speak for all of them in every instance but generally what they do is if they see that there might be a relationship they then look to see whether or not the the registrations that we have on file support that are the same i use it meaningful just hypothetically why is it meaningful even if you find three hundred showed that there was some of there was so much overwhelming evidence that people would not make that assumption then we would certainly consider that but that's not the record in this case in this case there are the eleven registrations in the eight web sites and just four i think standalone restaurants and so under the substantial evidence review that's enough to support what we're doing it's really incumbent on the examining jury just to give them a factual predicate for what it is that they're thinking might be the objection and give them an opportunity to come back as the course people didn't say yes you found a few things but overwhelmingly that's not the case in the market and that's not what the record here shows didn't it in the red three hundred twenty you know which would explain to us why they don't think because they're familiar with their businesses that they don't think there's going to be a likelihood of confusion they may even want to you know see in the arrangement we're going to lodge modifies their mark perhaps well much like an  concurrent used proceeding to say ok we'll we'll stay in the pacific northwest and you can have the rockies ok but all sounds nice yes but that's all contingent on the other side exactly exactly in other words this is this is not necessarily the last step for them but this is something that they could seek if they if they really want to get a federal registration well just to be clearly thought federal registration that you have been asserting your trademark against them correct you have reason i had in my head that you were representing the alaskan way yes but i just one of the point out that you would say that there are ways for them perhaps if they can get the agreement of the other side to get a registration that will suit their business needs if there are no further questions can tell on the map in the middle of nowhere yeah well i mean yeah i feel like sometimes to just respond number one we really want the trademark and we did i did call maybe if you come up with fourteen that would have been different story yes and to that point in recourse i didn't articulate it as well as i could have but the point is is they that they denied trademark you know they have granted trademark to blue moon here because we didn't conflict with move to move restaurants because there was over eight hundred and fifteen thousand restaurants versus fifteen hundred well if i extrapolate that there are eight hundred fifteen thousand restaurants out there then twelve thirty registrations and eight web pages is not enough not that's what i said but i put the words in eight hundred versus twelve hundred and that's why because you're so many restaurants i didn't make the question i want to go through the evidence with you the twelve third party distributions that the sites for the but you're right as i recall that there are pretty registrations fairly reflect that there are restaurants and lodges services combined for a trademark what meaning i mean let me give you for example if somebody files a trademark application in your case you saw it for just one type of goods correct restaurants or yes period many mcdonalds you know food services come up t shirts come to whatever you know to me like they can they seek a registration for lots of disparate categories of goods just because all those goods are listed with a bunch of commas next to him doesn't make a later good looks so what i'm trying to understand is exactly what these twelve things looked like th demonstratively did miss because you can see the registration from lots of goods that are not related to each other and just has one registration assault for all of them doesn't mean they're related in fact the fact that they're separately listed might actually suggest even though they might not be so i just i guess i'm going to as a matter of law whether that particular evidence proves can actually be utilized to prove the case and this is a very friendly question yeah i understand that and i  fully agree i don't even know why they even went there if all you have to do is go to the application registration that tells you what the services are so if you show me where what what these twelve pieces of evidence look like more i think the record  i have my physical compilation and not see these these all say page eighty three appendix resort large semi colon restaurant services you know resort restaurant services semi colon resort lodge so these are and i mean actually some of the a lot mean if mcdonald's for its golden arches said you know fast food service is semi colon t shirts the p t o would be justified in saying pulled out eight web pages where hotels that also happen to have restaurants that more similar names is that what those eight pieces of evidence look like yes there were web pages that show that  there is a lodge with a restaurant here but let me let me just check with my example for a minute suppose all the mcdonald's website there was a link that said and you can buy other mcdonald's paraphernalia and you jumped on that lead to a separate argument donald's web site where you could buy t shirts or footballs with the golden