for the sake of the sake of being right john then i'd like to point out that a lot of the issues that were addressed in the previous argument are going to be addressed here sorry and focus on those factors that i think are most important the underlying court in this case separate out one issue for trial and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the other issue the sole issue trademark analysis but also through affiliation connection association sponsorship approval of the two parties related products that they're selling the market and in this case services to music publishers who are also in the content business these are not three distinct industries they are all the same products in the same industries and in the same industry so that  selling different years hey they advertise the same music industry publications billboard advertisement as an example huge spread of like twenty eight special an advertisement talking to record label line there's also trade shows that they'll both attack and confront one another at new music seminar example digital hollywood they've got overlapping proposals at the m g entertainment that's highly relevant they're both making the same proposals for regular content purchases or at the same at the same length those factors were not present in the mc communication in the same way that they product you don't look to see what the advertising is banned on the mark tying in with your client well is very very limited and other words you look at when you look at the market strong because it's danceable you now if the likelihood of confusion is not how many people think confused it's quantitative rather i mean it's qualitative rather than quantitative so in that situation if we only have twenty testament in ten of them because of who they are where they are on whether where they are in the marketing channel are likely to be confused we've got we've got overlapping proposals being made by both companies to have b m g entertainment without them knowing that they were coming from that we've got that the issue of actual confusion we have in this case we have intent with the attorney recommended against going forward with the m to market in light of our presence marketing channels we've got overlapping proposals being made to b the licensing for content we've got advertisement in the same media we've got the parents is the same trade show are the record content different yes but the fact of the matter is they are confronting one another in these places now and then next year's mid am i have to banners and i'm to entertainment are one side of the room and m two software on the other side of the room that's the problem that review should be when there's an issue of law as to the jury instruction when the jury instruction deals with an issue of law and the court how that the review will be denied and that was in snake river valley versus pacific there was also there were where the court instructed the jury that in order to find reverse confusion that there have to be a saturation of the market that's not necessary for hirst confusion is just another that's another scales royalty accounting software that goes to accounting departments of record companies that has met this publishing software that goes to the to the accounting department of a publishing company but basically it's  same thing on a few occasions it's services software and if in the record in fact in agreement where it services the software it's called a royalty processing agreement so into software business is data processing now it tried but failed to get in to consumer business which also was very different and the record in our case is that over a three year period a plaintiff sold only over amazon dot com not in any record store not in any retail judge there granted summary judgment as follows she said that there was no likelihood of any type confusion forward or verse confusion among members of the record industry she also held that there was no likelihood of for they are processing and an audio cd roms are not directly competing but even video cd rom which go in a computer which have different functions which have the go in are different genre music are not directly competing product and the other was more of a family oriented but those weren't directly competing products a stationary bike in a looked at the whole bike in the thing international cases a recent opinion of the court were held not necessarily to  one the products are different i talk about that but soon as the record industry the sophistication of the user plaintiff product was marketed the record is under scrutiny primarily face to face ninety four i can't remember the precise date plaintiff ran an ad for a software and international buyers guide billboard happen to publish it it's a different publication probably the temporary two thousand edition of billboard magazine so there was a summary judgment strength and similarity of the marks and the real question i think as to strengthen this issue by conceptual versus commercial strength is whether or not yes i think that is very recognized that certainly the record label management system there was some commercial terms and conceptual strength arbitrary fanciful mark the question is though in light of these other factors where you have a sophisticated consumer that is members of the record evolving perhaps the arc of strength the commercial strength is so large that it will overcome those other factors here however not understanding the conceptual strength which is just a name but the conception strength can't twenty it was sold only on amazon dot com and is a threshold that i think that the courts in its opinions has has the sec or confusion has to be to an appreciable number of consumers negative there was no objection to that and in fact the plaintiff proposed its own instruction earlier on the case which had saturation as a requirement for reverse confusion tracking catalogue or albums to see what the wealthy rates are earning off of each one of those and i don't see that are relevant to people who are selling their content that they control on our own who are licensing the rights that they control and it's all  signs and what have you that are played at the at the stadiums are going to are going to somehow or another they're so different this little niche it's no different than that then to communications argument that it's christian music the point is that if you look the analysis of the sleek craft factors when you look at the similarity of markets they're identical when you look at proximity you see that they're in the same industry they're running across one another all the time th the likelihood of expansion to do it my client's doing by a record label is while not many do it my client competes with those record labels for the businesses that he offers and the sort of the offers all of these factors ar you thank you very much