have is we're seeking reversal of an award of attorney's fees under the lanham act because under the particular decision of the trial court level the lanham act would have to be expanded in order for the attorneys fees to stamp this case involves two nonprofit corporations who support candidates for political office we're not commercial ventures the alliance has existed since one nine hundred sixty seven and the coalition has existed since one nine hundred eighty two new the organizations are commercial in two thousand and eight the alliance filed the suit against coalition over its word mark and logo the coalition prevailed on the issue of jurisdiction and the alliance did nothing until two thousand and seventeen when it piled the lawsuit in federal court to take away the of the court the start of this case on summary judgment four months after after with the files and the trial judge took away our word walk and our name and after that decision was issued the defendant's move for attorney's fees and sixty eight over sixty eight thousand dollars was granted in attorney's fees against a nonprofit corporation coalition for better government despite the fact that the coalition offered nine exhibits which included one hundred forty six pages in opposition to summary judgment and hired an away our mark which was the eagle this doesn't make the coalition a prevailing party for successfully defending its trading we've got a trade name back but we're unable to come out with any ballot because we have a sixty eight thousand dollars judgment attorney's fees on our back at this time it should be noted that the alliance filed for its trademark in two thousand and twelve and the coalition filed for its federal trade what after about and when the alliance filed for its trademark they d the statement you made at the beginning which is that you're involved in political speech and not commerce that's correct but but we're bound by the panel's decision saying that those arguments were preserved in the district work well under stand that but that's  only argument that we have ok that's exactly why i asked the question the way i did if that's if you're bound by that that it cannot be in your main understand what is the argument you're making under the existing law under the lanham act for trying to space we don't fit in summary judgment has not been granted and i give the court all of that because it shows that because we were the parties being sued we have an obligation to go in and defend itself ourselves we have an obligation to go in and actually defend this particular  right does that mean there has to be a reapportionment of the fees because it made the judge barbie may not have abused its discretion saying that your case on the logo was not at all strong and was pushed on reasonably cases that that's like six cases that we cited in our brief which i'm not going to bore you to go over those but unless you want me to but in all of those cases it was agreed to it was almost fraud and all those cases where louisiana so that's important to do it but we're nonprofit we've never been a commercial venture who sometimes put out a ballot when we can afford to do it based on and small contributions from different people it runs maybe fifteen hundred dollars and to le name but maybe said that the word mark which would see the eagle should be changed we accept but i don't necessarily agree with that because if we would have tried the case you would see that one hundred sixty eight people political organizations  use eagle and other states but we didn't get a chance to try the case because it was decided on summary judgment before judge darby and he didn't want to hear anything so we got stuck with sixty eight thousand dollars there is no evidence against defendant coalition in this case coalition did not have an improper voter file a lawsuit we didn't file a lawsuit alliance to coalitions a nonprofit corporation it merely defended itself from the suit which was brought against him on among other competitors in the local political landscape they're participants in the political process and we don't come compete with anybody with any money to compete with anybody and we want to keep it that way because i think that's the way politics should be now involved in in two thousand and eleven and in that particular automobile accident that record was sealed by the civil district court because it contained climbing into rockets somehow opposing counsel got a hold of that and he put it in put it in his brain can judge or be a copy of that for whatever the reason is saying that i was a lawyer who made millions of dollars on personal injury cases and going into the fact that i made millions of dollars on real estate statement to the jury and so if there's any way you can get that out of an opinion i live alone i don't want anybody to know what my financial matters are i don't have retired sat it's got nothing to do with the case if you can get that the decision which was printed in the time says as you all mentioned that the standard here is abuse of discretion so the issue is whether whether the district court abused its discretion in determining that this was an exceptional case and  case is because this case was driven by the fact the coalition would not stop using the logo that the fifth circuit and the district court both found the coalition to have intentionally copied from alliance had had the coalition litigated this case in a reasonable manner the probably would have been an injunction to be modified to begin with in fact as mentioned in the brief and it's in the record during the hearing on summary judgment before judge barbie a judge barbie actually mentioned brought up the topic of with the parties agreeing to allow coalition efforts in using the the prevailing party at least as to the name and or use your position that that has no consequence for a portion yes it because there are situations where there is a trademark claim along with non trademark claims and sometimes there's a portion between how much of the case was was litigated to address the trademark claims and how much was for the non trivial claims but when  multiple lanham act liens you still have to separate them out so if they turn the fees has embedded in it time spent on defending the name i don't see why you'd be entitled to that time what portion of the sixty thousand dollars was spent as to the issues they prevailed although that would be for the district court and and i would point to the district courts see judgment and order the what we're discussing that the case important is that the centerpiece of the two marks identical to the naked eye although the names of the entities other spec the marks of technically different are substantially the same so that the substitution of a couple names does little to distinguish the junior mark of the senior it's clear that the district court was focusing on the logo when writing this opinion and granting the fees secondly the the strings of the litigating position between the parties as only one of the two pro have to reform with our members on that and he said he understood that's in the transcript the key here before you and when the united states for circuit requested that we all enter into a settlement proposal on this case the defendant and the i work with classmates together we went to night school together