please the court david gauntlet for the appellant i'd like to reserve three minutes i have three reasons why i think reversal is appropriate like to focus on the first visit vogue's advertisement organic moroccan app argan oil in close proximity to those moroccan oil or hair salons meets the more element showing derogation by clear implication that was missing and true and that's why i brought a motion to the court to try to resolve it before the need to bring it to a merits panel but the court decided but it had to be pro american that on and we've got to resolve it i understand so bottom line is that five eight fourteen we follow lawsuit five twenty nine we amend it as of that date it appears that there were three limited partnerships with confidential members some of those members resided in connecticut and connecticut is the principal place of business of hartford and we didn't know that at the time when we filed the case in federal court it only came to light subsequently when a distinct action brought by both also against hartford related to a different underlying lawsuit was prosecuted in middle district of florida in tampa and the court asked us to establish that in fact the l l c which was defended in that suit had appropriate jurisdiction we did an investigation we had to look at confidential documents to recognize that in fact some of the members of some of the limited partnerships that were members of the l l c had  personnel who were in fact residents connecticut the court dismissed without prejudice based there on and so obviously i don't want to be in this court and have an order that i can enforce a plan successful and fair hart that does not so we think that date that matters well i think the referenced that your thirty one paragraph nine in ten and sixty one to sixty six of the records suggests that that the date right and the information was provided to the middle district in florida had a declaration like the one that was presented in connection with our motion to this court that had the same information part of the problem was it was a confidential document and store getting more specificity would have required as getting a protective order to even put before a more specificity on that topic but  we had no knowledge that there was a limited partnership which had a confidential list of members it does you have to and my inquiry went to the client about the citizenship of the limited partners we didn't have any information from the client about whether there was a confidential documents that the client didn't have access out when we did the hard inquiry in the middle district that in fact we couldn't meet the criteria to be in federal court there once that became evident i was i was duty bound to tell this court that there was a prob with diversity that i wasn't aware of previously  i prefer federal court as a venue i was half lay gated lot to want to cover a case of these issues and i wanted to be in federal court i just didn't realize it was a problem with that particular limited partner because there was no walk ins d c council who gave us the superficial level of information to get that knowledge about the specific that your client right i understand that the client has a limit is is n l l c and one of the limited partners carlyle is the one that has this information and they have the information maintained is confidential by that particular limited partnership and so my client doesn't have direct access to that information itself it just the body and get the information and do it here but one way or another it has to be done right will the other possibility is that you take as efficient what the middle district for all court corporation just for diversity the fact that there was apparently a successor in interest to talk christopher encourage was taught christopher international l c which was also and eleven of  inks citizenship instead of a because it was their citizen the sole test is whether there was diversity at the time in filing of the original complaint against hartford everything else substitution of a substitut change of address change of the nature of the plaintive does not change the fact that at their filing on may eighth two thousand and fourteen there was full diversity they talk christopher inc was described both in the underlying action and in the ordinal complaint on may eighth against hartford as taught christopher inc doing business as a vogue international doing business as doesn't create a separate legal entity is simply not four says in fact that doing business under another name does not create an entity distinct from the person operated the business g c i inc was the original plaintive whether it had the ability to bring the law christopher international inc brought the origin lawsuit on regardless even if you want to look at vogel see there's no description of when those different unknown members that were added there's no description as to what their citizenship is it talks that the florida district courts decided in november to dismiss a case doesn't change doesn't address the diversity of the parties involved in may of two thousand i believe that it's clear that there was full diversity between hartford casualty and thought christopher inc on may eighth two thousand and fourteen when top christopher ensuite hartford in this case the lawsuit in florida claiming to be successor in interest by various steps to talk christopher inc and the decision that was made in florida by the florida district court was involving whether there was diversity in november a different time out of the persecution to require an inquiry so that we have to answer that question to be satisfied i think that discourse can answer the question by looking at the complaint against hartford the original complaint against the software which is the test or original filing made by touch christopher and there's no need to look at anything else it's not analyse there's no need to investigate with the twenty ninth and the need for the first amended complaint before any ruling for any merit to reach and that clarified that in fact the party legally entitled to pursue at that point in time was in fact the international transition had already occurred on february sixth two thousand and fourteen at the time and it was unfortunately our client didn't tell us that and so we found out about it after  so it happened and so as soon as we learned that then we piled in federal court and of course we didn't also know because they didn't know that the carlisle entity had members who were limited partners who were r connecticut that didn't come about until much later in two thousand and fourteen through the middle district of florida so while i would prefer to get to the merits i don't know that you can i think you have to deal with jurisdiction first which is why i brought the motion to the merits panel to make sure that we wouldn't waste the time of a full panel if we could suggesting that the it koos products are an alternative to moroccan oil products meets the more element showing derogation by clear implication that was missing in swift and if you think about an alternative that is inconsistent with the notion of mere consumer confusion because it offers a distinct product second only in the alternative under  af copying another's advertising our dealers style of advertisement is that satisfied as a district court conceded by the allegations distinct from labeling of products that there was advertising ip exclusion apply that's my third point and the reason is because if you look at waller v truck and church six change you first look at what the exclusion starts with this insurance does not apply to quotes personal in advertising injury it's in quotes so you have to find injury arising out of one of those two offenses that conduct and that conduct alone is the only one that you then mix with the ip exclusion and as says it has to apply in all possible worlds the exclusion well one possible world is one with will be no trademark no trade dress and only on fair competition based on suggesting that the accused products are an alternative moroccan oil people go to the hair salon bunch of blue bottles one of them says rock and oil the other that has both or at the time caught christopher on it and they both offer moroccan agro oil products and one of them says is organic ours so labeled and so advertise and the other is not in ours is better price and that whole proposition is also evident spikes forensic evidence that we were value competitors we offered a value product through our advertising and the moroccan aggregate oil phrase itself arguably is also within offen copying another's advertising idea because an advertising idea is defined by hartford policy as any idea for an advertising well that includes the idea that our product is rock in akron oil and that that liability falls outside the exclusion and you need look no further than the most recent case in my twenty eight day letter filed on the sixteenth of july which hartford elected no response hand over and over food and it deals  service in order to detract from the reputation of its competitor like verisign here is ours is organic ours is better price you're sitting in the salon and they're suggesting that the accused products are alternatives what the suggesting is there may have been further oral statements not in the complaint specified testified but as in rock as in michael taylor referenced in the swift case where they said customers were steered toward cheap synthetic knock off are allegations of trademark yes or all of geisha trade dress and there are a blurring kind of allegations but there's also tarnished image as well and indeed you'll see a lot of dilution cases and trademark were both are impossible because you can both have mis perceptions of consumers that this may be an affiliated product with the first one which could lead to blurring seat offense or tarnish and because you think less of the other product because this product is designs were made to be indistinguishable if a knockoff was decided by the california supreme court not to be disparagement saying that you are an alternative it doesn't say you're a better alternative or you're the cheaper aggressively price being that we are we are the only organic and none of those terms show up anywhere in the record the only person that mentions the word aggressively price or better price is vo claimant and then never made any of those allegations and counsel for the insured or doing short itself cannot create facts that create coverage in terms of michael taylor in michael taylor implied that some negative statements were made the california supreme court has said that the test is not fairly implied but clear implication in fact the languages are stronger than that it says that mass specifically referred to the plaintiffs product or business and clearly delegate that product or business issue acquirement must be satisfied by expressing mention or clear implication clear implication means more than a statement that me possibly be construed as there are get to reach a specific product or business it means that it has to be a clear and necessary inference based on that language in the california supreme court's decision and so left and the fact that point because it's the test that it uses for the employer is not on an issue in any event the fact pattern on michael taylor is not in alledged anywhere in the record the only the only where it's discussed is