have come out to congress what's the effect of congress not talking about these decisions when they've made amendment argument that it cuts against you that is in subsection any the congress has demonstrated to ability to use the word injunction when it wishes to use the word injunction and in the section before us it doesn't use the word relief it may need not be called injunction but neither is a temporary restraining order i guess the different you know that apropos of the temporary restraining order which of course can be issued ex parte on occasion this is issued section one hundred eleven sixteen any talks about injunctions which are granted upon hearing and after notice to defendant is required in terms of mountains absolutely and there's times out in the legislative history of the us congress specifically referenced rule sixty five and reference the standards in a rule sixty five and so that they apply those standards to an us to orange county which i think is a well written decision excellent you're absolutely right and in which we have three fundamental characteristics of the injunction now it seems to me that if you could show that what happened here that's within those three characteristics you might be home free but as i read them i think you have a real burden could you turn to orange county and first tell us why it's directed to a party obviously it's not directed to a party number two it's in forcible by contempt can this be enforced by contempt this order question directly designed to protect the relief stuff court because congress specifically concluded and found that if notice is given in these situations where you have counterfeiters they will hide destroy or move the evidence and that's very difficult to prove granting of an ex parte seizure order and that chase looking at to the second two thousand and carson the court concluded that there is not a serious and reparable consequences because this party seizures before the statute was an active and the court in that case a determined that too often it's noticed as given the goods are hidden destroyed or moved in this case these are counterfeit if they're they're substantially indistinguishable which is the situation here here reparable harm is presumed it's harming our goodwill it's harming there because there's a likelihood of confusion it harms or goodwill reparable harm is presumed in that but that but if the district the real issue is can you appeal that in other words it's not that you don't have a legitimate complaint assuming that you meet all the criteria but if the district court denies the order as they did here you know why should we be looking at that because the district court has made a determination that there's not going to be a seizure order you can still go that's why it needs to be done without notice and that's why i also distinguishes this promise from a temporary restraining order with a temporary restraining order as your honor points out if it's denied you can go ahead you can file a preliminary injunction if the preliminary injunction is then denied then of course under twelve ninety two a one you can go ahead an appeal to the circuit in this situation with a denial of an ex parte seizure order once it's denied that right is gone that relief that congress authorized us to do is that can be used and you can get an injunction and it may turn out for example that the injunction order that this record will have to decide again the goods will be hidden destroyed or moved and our ability to go in and seize those goods while we may have a couple of cartons of goods if course we want to get those goods those counterfeit goods with our trademark get them and get them out of the stream of commerce and congress recognized because of the problems with counterfeiting and how much of a negative epidemic it has become and how many billions of dollars are being lost in counterfeit goods particularly counterfeit cigarettes in this situation we need to be able to we have lost and it's essential right that has been authorized and created by congress to specifically address situations like this and because congress recognized this as an injunction i believe congress recognized the the ability to appeal and that's consistent with the search there are circuit case there's circuits opinion in the tom let me ask you a practical problem we're going to make an opinion on as soon hobby asli the circuit needs some direction so we'd have to publish it but everything's so far as been in camera if we put the other person's name on i'm not sure what you want on this appeal i haven't had this come up to  have been around for thirty years it still hasn't happened before how do you suggest that we handle the publication of any disposition the publication of any disposition to want to call so always be done after th because we could say we have jurisdiction but then the next step of that you know i think is it is a little more complicated well not more complicated but it's also complicated because i'm with it what you presented and it said if that's not enough to convince me you have not you know you have not satisfied me that i should issue you order injunction whatever you want to call it i mean for you to prevail there it seems to me you have to convince us that i don't think you have to prove this counterfeit if that was the legal error the court made but i can't tell from this record that the court didn't just say this isn't enough for me you decided you wanted to put on what you wanted to put on and i guess you allege that if you did if you put on what the court said that you put on that it would it would violate trade secrets but i don't see why you couldn't put on an expert just to come in and say trademarks are on the outside of the pack and whether it's counterfeit is determined by a visual inspection of the trademarks of the packs of the content of the past and is determined not by an expert by but by the  come in and a chemist or an expert could come in but that's not the burden of the burden here is we have to be we have to show a likelihood likely to succeed that the packs are counterfeit we had testimony believe what if the court just didn't think their experts were that are you know the people that you called in the court just said hey that's not enough for me you know i don't i'm not satisfied under that burden but how do you you know isn't that an abuse of discretion if that's what happened legal standard he said you have to prove conclusively through experts estimate that these are in fact counterfeit that's not the standard the standard is likely to succeed in a regular civil case in front of a in front of a bench trial where the  that were in fact just counterfeit labeling