more than thirty years he sold research paper lollipops without complaint she sold those lollipops in clear wrappers so their customers can see the product and she sold them with in displays they have a farmyard she was selling sweaters  out differently in this case there's not rip of mark it's sweaters for sweaters she she claims the the word cocksucker has a oh i'm sorry i misunderstood us i misunderstood you yes in this case it would come out differently your  because cocksucker can only have a vulgar meaning in that context honor because cocksucker in this context sure is a double entendre it sure is both the rooster shaped lollipop rooster lollipop a little e one meaning and the second meaning when you combine the pose an open question are the other party the other aspect of this case is that we have we have been reluctant the court has been reluctant and the p t o has been reluctant to make more garrity determinations when it's a close everybody was over as the supreme court for fifty seven dirty words this is one of them right correct your honor so why should it make a difference that there are two meanings rather than one because your honor in composite seeing this mark this whole mark with this product can necessarily assume that the market is vulgar in this context i concede that the word cocksucker a single word cocksucker has a vulgar meaning for a number of people but we do not know what substantial positive of the general public would think in this context faced with a rooster shaped lollipop in a non obscene setting with two separate words in a restricted so let's take away the rooster shade and let's just i mean i'm troubled by the separation of one word into two with that one word clearly has only one definition and then you could sort of circumvent that by separating the two words  finding independent definitions for each of those two words when you say the word it's one word which is not subject to debate not subject to me so what is there that it can point to that allows you to do that and  two points your honor the fact that i can see that when you pronounce them while it might be a slight difference for most people they're not going to notice a difference between the one word and the two words that's only one sense of commercial impressions you have to look at all the considerations again they would encounter it will receive lollipops and with with the design a let's put them this one word let's assume we have the case and it's one word that we don't think that it makes a difference that you can avoid themselves by separating those two words and what do you have left to lose right if you have if you a one word mark right in this case you would be yes you might she would she would lose because the one work only had the one definition but in this case she did separate the part and i think that's critical in this case i recognize that the  director in the court cited a number of cases where they said space does not matter and that's true in more than most cases adding a space between two words to separate a word is not going to make a difference however those cases were all has the same meaning is it your view that our case law compels any time we were given that there's a double entendre that it's insufficient to you that you need to record is that your view of our cases and if so which do you get that well i that i think the boulevard case says it all definitions go to one meaning go to one dictionary meaning and that the goods that are being sold under that code that one meaning then if this were a single word it probably we might we would probably lose the case because then she was clearly going to the definition of one of the four slave ships the fact that you separated out as a product that is that is clearly a rooster lollipop drive in the dictionary definitions that because consumer statements were in the record all these sorts of things point to the fact that she has where people do not necessarily one twenty two the record did say based help our case however the examiner said because they're only third of the third even they could not constitute substantial evidence of the i cannot demonstrate substantial composite the general public thanks and now the board has come back relied on is some dictionary definitions here they've never done internet research ten years no intermediate net research ten years in psych one article these are all a think of a tele do you're supposed to be doing internet research at articles go to was what the to well use together if they're together they're hyphenated or they use as one word uniformly vulgar what do they do with that but the two word out because they're not separate words but businesses can businesses have the have the ability to use separate words in different ways i mean just because there's a dictionary definition for the one word doesn't necessarily mean when separated it keeps that dictionary definition especially when those separate dictionary definitions different definitions lead to a different to address the issue of whether the two words cocksucker have a scandalous meaning and he said after quote extensive research he found no definition for the two separate words nor did he find any scandalous use of the two words in the marketplace so that would seem to entendres questions of potential parity it's been sent out to be published and let the public out of the public as a problem with it they will comment and we will then be able to make a book a broader record more a more detailed record to make the determination we're all assuming the public finds this mark two separate words with a rooster lollipop in this context with a rooster designed to be scandalous we don't know that because nobody has ever bothered to get to that level they didn't provid internet research and prying articles the only research they've done seems to support that nothing was found and when faced with that situation the video with seemed to urge us to go and publish it and see what the public asked to say about it different set of circumstances than we had in mabini memory it was a case where there was an ambiguity there was no real evidence about which one of those definitions of the public would choose here we've got a single dictionary definition that was in the record shows the two terms together the other have a vulgar meaning and that was the case with the believe that the mark there was a big pecker brand and that was a case in which there wasn't any sort of definition of those words all together meaning that there was no there was nothing no definition the dictionary that didn't have the same base there but that there is there they didn't cite any meaning for the words big factor that had anything other than a vulgar meaning that they only when you separate the words could they then say it was ok and here if you separate the words it's almost the exact same analysis pekar has different were different meanings depending on the context and here you ha this court's precedents make very clear that in each individual case before the p t o was who apply the prohibitions in section two to make sure they make the correct determination about whether mark can be registered irrespective of whether or not there may have been mistakes made in prior cases of those sections is it your argument that the word cock has no independent non vocal meaning no it clearly does and in this case the miss fox has tried very hard to run away from that meeting in order to create a humorous double entendre i think you know her counsel mentioned at the beginning of his argument that she tried very hard to pull away from that meaning and she used the designs in order to try to do that but what he's seeking is a rule that if there is a double entendre it automatically goes to registration and he cites for that a t f t p section that deals with  cannot be registered but the prohibition there is against mere descriptions whereas in section two a dealing with scandalous knows the statutory prohibition for marks that consist of work comprised comprise means include scandalous matter so while there may be a basis for creating a double entendre rule with respect to description it's because it takes it out of being merely the script there is no statutory basis to do that with respect to scandalous mar marks and he clearly has conceded that one meaning of the double entendre is a be profane or vulgar meaning and so that is that comprises a scandal scandalous matter if he really asked for broad rule and a rule it's somewhat narrow in the broader rules that he's argued for is basically a double entendre gets an automatic pass on their map and in another time he said a double entendre gets a pass if there's only dictionary definition definitions in support of the scandalous most final note here we've got more than that we've got admissions throughout the prosecution's history and indeed in their brief to this court that there is a vulgar meaning he said earlier in the is relevant is it not it is relevant and there's a lot of cases where there's a word that that might be a double entendre where the border or the courts have said no because you're only using it in the vulgar context that's correct let's hear some of the head no so we have to look at the context which is being used absolutely but i don't think looking at the context in which is being used is quite as clear as simply having something that's kind of innocuous of a product and not something that's related to the fact an industry or pornography or something like that up here when the court looks up the goods i think you've also got to take into account that these are drugs that are generally going to be available to the public including parents shopping with children and that is something that the t p a be specifically mentioned in its decision but i get i don't think you're responding to judge o'malley's question and as i understand that it's in the context of these goods these goods very clearly demonstrate that the alternative me that this is you know a chocolate lava lollipop in the shape of a rooster so it sort of brings forward the alternative need right i agree with no double entendre but why isn't that enough to at least if you say ok well we don't have we don't want to blanket rule for double entendre anytime there's conceivably two meanings it's not enough why isn't the rule a more limited which is anytime there are two meanings and clearly the product just operate in the context with clearly demonstrate the second alternative why shouldn't that a species of fish i don't think this is a an instance where the product clearly demonstrates that only the second meaning is the operable meaning and in fact molested as an accurate description of the product right yes it's basically th generic non vulgar description of the product yes that's right ok so why isn't that now because under section two a year on or if the market comprises scandalous matter that is what the prohibition is against registration it's not something that has to be merely scandalous is something that comprise a scandalous matter in a double entendre of the nature of the miss fox is advocating for is something that comprises includes scandalous matter is to direct the p t o to do its job which reckoned i feel is not an honest job to get in ten years they could have provided searches article something to support to take this out of the situation we're not advocating a rule is a double entendre you automatically get published rabih king a rule that if there's a double entendre the p t o doesn't do its job and doesn't and doesn't get bring in any other evidence other than dictionary definitions but that's not sufficient that's what this case that's a  tell us that they have to provide more they've done p t o does this all the time the luxury of tape that's the middle finger bottle case they brought internet search maxim in the cocktail case they brought in internet searches all those sorts of things to provide more evidence uniformly all of the dictionary definitions of that one term with no space no you know your honor i'm not saying what i'm saying is that they truly believe that there is a difference between the two then they should enable those searches of each one i mean didn't believe th one in the same in your view of internet or that's a different no no they could do that one of two things in your view correct your honor so they if they wanted to prevent this from going to publication to support their position this is unquestionably bold or they could have gotten more than dictionary definition that's