jurisdiction in the sense of personal jurisdiction are you you still challenging that that your clients are not the alter ego of the companies who entered into state where you have better contacts and i don't see that you wander took that burden here it's not the district court doesn't have a sou sponte obligation according to our case from last defendant who wants to preclude use of rule for k two has only to name some other state in which the simple procedure you never did that you're talking about contacts but you never said we're interested in using off type concept was repeated by the st socket in the details we don't have a legitimate interest in protecting foreign confusion and it's not a circumstance where yet substantial impact on commerce i'm a little bit confused because as i understand it in the summary judgment proceedings you acknowledge that there had been over two hundred thousand dollars the trial that indicate the dollar email products sold in foreign commerce in that up in the united states at i'm sorry i didn't was a willful effort to infringe right down to using our letterhead to tell customers that their products were still the same old tronic products just a new name they diverted millions evidence in the record that those infringing products ended up back in the united states and i'm looking at my own records that indicate it's in volume twelve it's three thousand and six but i can't tell you from memory what i'm referring to there what is there anything or record yes your honor there is i mr white collar that was one of defendant's own witnesses honor through those not the specific amounts as there wasn't summary judgment but you can see the exhibits which are part of the trial record and you could add them up and be quite the luminous it was through two thousand and seventeen it was almost two million dollars all right so you're telling me that here i go and have your invoice for some period of time it will show d that two million dollars products came from foreign countries into this country yes run or at least almost two million dollars just for up through two thousand and seventeen and there are probably what's what's the fourteen through december two thousand and seventeen we didn't get updated financial records after bad two million dollars over three years and minimum of that yes your hon record indicate is it these invoices you're talking about is that what this indicate whether or not the endorsements are merely exemplary or they represent the total amount of product coming from foreign countries into this country  on the testimony of other witnesses that's the floor not the ceiling of what may have come back generally they sometimes indicate which country they end up in but there's nothing that perhaps the person that by the radio controls from ultimately sending abroad where they knew us customers would be present and i'm going to go through some of the specific u s confusion evidence in a minute and they harmed the tronics reputation a u s company when u s customers thought that their diffracted products were ours and were mad at us when we told them we couldn't fix them all of this led judge fry it to conclude in this permanent injunction ruling quote defendants have clear contact with and links to the u s close quote and given these extensive contacts to try continue to quote any remaining qualms about extraterritorial application melt away close quote dependence primary argument below and on appeal and  today is that none of their infringement and harm they cause is actionable because they are for but the trial court rightly rejected that argument as a matter of law for and defendants don't get a free pass under the lan i believe so your honor and i can give you examples of foreign defendants being in joint including in the trader joe's case which is a night they were enjoying they found that they had they could apply exercise or trial application over them to tell you about the other witnesses who testified about us confusion if that's ok with your honor that's what their own u s distributor mr roaders testified about more examples of u s customer numerous examples of confusion both in europe and in the united states civically with the united states he testified about a company who took its abby trying label product to her tronic usa in oklahoma for it to be repaired is waiting for this case to be over so he can return back and continue selling in the united states we also had substantial testimony about trade shows in europe where u s customers were present and were equally  confused in this case we have a u s company that lost sales u s customers were computerized and the reputation of a u s company was harmed by customers thinking that they made defective infringing products form or president ok did in the united states to assist them with their infringement the defendants sought in the u s f c c licenses which are only necessary to sell products in the united states not they hire to us to ship it or they sent people from germany to train those the us to ship and to conduct repairs they exhibited at the u s trade show and international trade shows with u s customers they had a booth that looked very similar to tronics they sold products as i mentioned earlier that they knew were destined for the united states and you've heard about the u s confusion and because of all of that the reputation of a u s company was harmed and this is particularly critical in cases and you'll see this in the davis cases and the  case and several others who are former and former foreign distributors then turn around and start competing and selling infringing products it's not surprising that can  confused as to who produce products thereby nor is it surprising that those efforts are diverting sales from the u s company because the cost consumer still believe that they are buying products from the same company and that's what led judge the defendants infringement as we explained in our brief the overwhelming weight of authority recognize that the lanham act reaches these kinds of injuries therefore we ask that you aff to try its entry of the injunction as well so the images of war let me ask you a question on the injunction why is it not overbroad and reaching countries in which had chronic is not currently marketing or selling these items so your honor the evidence at trial was that a tragic and the defendant sat in the exact same countries abroad either directly through traffic or through exclusive distributors so the injunction covers  territories where we were repaired diverted sale so it's not overly broad well what if one of the companies goes to a new new country but neither has been and before the injunction covers that as i understand should isn't that they think it's inappropriate to seek relief under the injunction but it's not shots that were not present there there's other factors that go into substantial effect on us congress that would need to be considered and i would defer that issue to the district court