case i'm not going to spend a lot of time on any arguments made by the league regarding the timeliness of the appeal but i just want to say this briefly if you have any questions i'd be happy to answer them appeal before we needed to because the time around from the disposition of the last motion to amend the judgment disposition was june eighth we filed our motion earlier in may and under the rules if you decisions actually made it becomes affect when the decision is made so i'm not going to belabor that anymore and to say that but i would like to jump in to let you know what happened in the underlying case  copyrighted works and a trademark going to which he then began licensing lawyers around the country to use practices and he much like scripts copyrighted advertising materials and slogans and instead of licensing these two lawyers he had done ok he had done this for years before the defendant in this case competent legal services it was the understanding that he would say he would offer those same quality of competence services if licensed and the testimony at trial was that while he was using that trademark he offered the same competent legal services  argument which is we had did have a valid trademark all along we weren't frenching anybody it isn't exactly clear but there was a jury into rugged tory that may have supported he couldn't do that and it isn't explained why but he did he paid the able consideration to transfer included the registration and the good will be paid one hundred thousand dollars for it but somehow the jury found that that was an invalid transfer of that trademark possibly could be ya know i mean i guess there possibly could be and then the question would be by one of those were the actions of your client in this case willful and exceptional or whatever that with if i don't even know but the reason why i think there is more than just the deliberateness requirement is false and i'm i'm referring now to the again back to the earthquake case and i'm now on page pin ninety two of second fourteen hundred we explained that will willful infringement carries a connotation of deliberate intent to deceive courts generally apply forcible labeled such as deliberate fault merely voluntary or intentional means because here we have nothing in the jury instructions or in the jury findings that plaintiffs were anything more then voluntary or intentional eating because that's the factual underpinnings but i believe that there has to be something more than this voluntary or intentional mountain and from the jury's finding there doesn't seem to be anything more than that yes i agree that there was no we we in struct a jury that all of the defendants use of the mark in order to the benefit of my client the license or i provided the jury instruction which is the law and he did he refused to give it so now i have not that my understanding is there was no at that time there was nothing wrong during wrong with that except that it was claimed that you didn't really have a trademark at that point well he never at the trial he claimed that during the time that he was using you never did so there came a point in time w he quit paying us and so we terminated return of the agreement under which he was using the copyrighted work and the trademark and from that terminations on it was our belief that he was an infringer and that he no longer had rights and so we choose to appeal the merits and so we have just a nice feeling order up here on feel the central issue in the litigation itself was whether the license agreement between mr lerner and mr invision mr bryant had the requisite quality control the trademark act requires for a trademark license if there's not the control of the quality of the services here the legal services that's what the trademark service mark really was registered for legal services you have to control the quality of the legal services being offered under the market just like any other franchise arrangement mcdonald's or anyone else has to control the quality of the products that are being offered by its independent franchisees and the market or the trademark license is invalid in the central contention of mr the litigation from the outset was that he controlled the quality of his legal services he was the one using the trademark and therefore he was the proper owner of the trademark so when the parties have the following out in march or april of two thousand and one he felt and he came to me for legal advice about the issue but he couldn't continue using the trademark and he believes that he did continues in a slogan one call that's all for his legal services he's been using it for several years in las vegas it was well recognized well known as the one call attorney invention fell because of a little sentence in their agreement their advertising agency agreement which they call a trademark license and i tell you you must overturn this soon as  they're the owner and they license to utah attorney to come into los vegas where everyone in the city knew glen learner's the one called tourney and start running as for a gentleman named keith barton under one call that song and so mr lerner's getting calls from opposed to a complete and total well i think we want to be careful about two different issues one is is it an exceptional case if invision it just has to litigate the ownership without creating the confusion in las vegas if that w not likely to succeed on the merits and yet they're continuing to advertise peace partner utah attorney in nevada under the same slogan so you think if it had been somewhere else let's say they were just doing it in utah they were doing it meaning number of other tests so that  you think that that's where it became exceptional yes years that they did it right where this guy was that they had the dispute with and you know in your face they took the risk that they had to know they're going to create confusion and they took the risk that they were going to lose the case before the jury i guess their position was that it was your client was pretty the confusion by using a trademark that didn't block him out that turns out to be wrong and lost the jury verdict and they're not appealing that but of a jury instruction i would point out to the court to do jury instruction that envision proposed on that issue was that something as willful it's if it's a knowing and deliberate violation of another's rights but i think what i'm saying is ok the jury did find waffle right right and the court mentions it but the court doesn't say you know i sat there listening to the evidence i also find and that's why it's exceptional i mean do we just infer from that or i think that's what i'm hearing coun argue or is was it just coincidence that the judge mentioned it in the same that was certainly not my impression during the argument and he is or ruling from the bench if it didn't come through in the written ruling that he provided it seems very clear to me that he trademark ownership are are relatively very weak this notion that you can go out and buy a trademark registration for one hundred thousand dollars from an unrelated florida attorney that you have no relationship with and sort of shore up your legal claims is exactly the sort of trying to buy a lawsuit that i think the exceptional requirements meant to discourage you know somebody would pay one hundred thousand dollars for something that they knew was no good i think people pay a hundred thousand dollars in takes to get to the jury because you know i have a registration piece of paper in your hand and he gets a presumption of little that goes along with that that's what it takes to get the jury for a potential multimillion dollar award yes i think people would do that the case first started and then i did not enroll formally in the nevada district court until march of two thousand and four well because they said this the way that the order is here and you review attorneys fees for abus discretion and obviously the other where that was involved the court did not award a full amount the court gave some sort of reduction let's cry out why if you know what if the court had just said well i don't think that way what you get is you know should be awarded as a part of that and it was an exercise of the court's discretion or do you have any recourse then well we could appeal then argue that it was an abuse of discretion but i don't think that's what the judge said that in his order i think he was i don't think you broke those two out separately as the wording but they were there reviewed separately and i think in terms of the first issue the legal issue the ninth circuit law makes it pretty clear that once you find willful infringement that's enough to conclude that a case  so this was two thousand and one when the polygamy injunction motion was withdrawn and actually the defendant was preparing a pulmonary injunction motion in september october of two thousand and one and only didn't file it because mr barton would bring to the court's attention and there's a little bit of an ambiguity there as to whether the attorneys feel water under the copyright actually be under section five of five for prevailing party or into the court's inherent powers because they are to get a registration is a jurisdictional the fact there's an unpublished decision the ninth circuit in a case called the court would not have jurisdiction to determine that one party was a prevailing party on that basis and so you couldn't award attorneys fees under section five five you have to do it  inherent powers and the district judge here to do under both would bring that to the court's attention as a complication on the copyright issues here that were alternative basis is for the direct a verdict so it's even a little more complicated but i bring that to the court oh your honor i think that comment that you made regarding confusion about the law and what was going on with who owned what is really the heart of this issue there were confusions of law and they were not helped by the district judges lack of jury instructions and therefore the totality of circumstances this will in this finding cannot be held i want to address the copyright issue for a moment  copyright issue remember this case that copyright claims and trademark claims and some other claim since it was federal jurisdiction already and at the point that it was pointed out that it was discovered that there weren't registrations a motion for summary judgment was brought our good faith basis for continuing to litigate it because the court didn't tell us not to continue with the copyright case so we continued with that we brought our evidence on the court disagreed with the sufficiency of our evidence but that certainly is not as a matter of law that the fact that he wasn't enrolled that the court wasn't going to consider those attorneys i believe that was at least one of the bases if that's wrong as a matter of l qualify you were not enrolled so i'm not even going to look at them and that's my story and i'm sticking to it if that's wrong then the court's got to at least look at it well there were other bases mr dunning was a fact witness and listed