descriptive this issue and the likelihood of confusion are likely to cause confusion issue both of those issues are reviewed here for substantial evidence correct yes or no it isn't isn't that a difficult hurdle for you because clearly he is an ample record in this matter on both of those issues that would  so my first response to your question is this mark yes there is a record but what the record shows in my opinion is that this mark is suggested and not descriptive  good deals with ladies go off or with implementing a go fight perhaps even manufacturing of golf clubs it doesn't suggest it doesn't describe the particular activities for which this mark is registered while the test is whether the mark conveys information about a significant quality or characteristic of the goods or services and i submit that when you say ladies golf dot r products sold online or ladies golf correct will not completely this mark is also used as i said it happens business but what is the description of the services  app it is true that the application is specifically the narrowed to online services for gold united's and what but but when you say ladies gold dot com that doesn't tell you what the golfing items are they don't appear in the dictionary that's not a dictionary term that's not a term that you can look up in the dictionary there are a lot of dictionary entries for lady combined with other words but there is no entry of the dictionary for lady combined with go off but this mar is beyond that it adds dot com in the case of the mark that was cited against it the the word mark was lady golf but of course that was not registerable it was only because they had the design of the golf ball and they disclaimed any entitlement to lady gulf apart from the mark as shown we have that situation we have ladies golf but we have something else we bet at the identified goods so they denied registration just by adding dot com to that particular mark well are you are you're on that particular line i think that this court has an opportunity to that is because when you have an internet mark you have exclusive rights to that to that mark nobody else can come along and use the same mark if somebody comes along and tries to use ladies gold dot com they will be since and internet address is the exclusive property of the person who obtained the internet address no one else can have that internet address but that exclusive property rights should be recognized with trademark status so that other people shouldn't be able to appropriate that exclusive right to the internet owner has by that very point was addressed by the court in the  the commercial impression conveyed in light of the goods or services associated with the market not just a simple check or ownership of an internet address and we're bound by that decision and  to dress the issue of adding a dot com to a descriptive term and in this case i think the evidence that the board and the examiner relied on was sufficient to show that ladies is descriptive when you're using it for services and offering ladies golf clothing and equipment so using the term ladies golf and combining it with dot com in this instance the combination would not add anything to take it out of the descriptive round of a mark and i think that's exactly what this court said and opened up that said typically or in general adding the dot com will not remove the descriptive nature of the rest of the mark so here the board did look at ladies golf and it looked at dot com and it looked at the combination of the two together and it found that the mark remained fairly descriptive appellant didn't have an opportunity to address the likelihood confusion issue which was the other basis for refusal in this case and here the office found that there would be a likelihood of confusion if applicants mark ladies golf dot com com were registered in view of the market lady golf and design it's already registered that page twenty two he appendix  and here first of all they found that services were extremely similar to the registrant has a retail store service as well as a registration for the items of clothing and equipment that you would use women and still therefore in view of these very similar services they next move to look at a comparison of these two marks and again the board and the examiner found that the marks were very similar and if and when these marks were used on the very similar services you have your online retail services and your retail store services that aren't specifically on line that  additional questions back to the refusal i would note that if the board were to if this court were to affirm on the likelihood of confusion refusal it wouldn't be necessary to go all out and address the descriptive in this refusal but just briefly on the issue of forgiveness our position is that this mark should be treated like i b m dot com it doesn't tell you what that mark is being used for of course it's very it's  just various services and products of i b m so to the market ladies golf dot com doesn't tell you what specific services are involved if you look at the market we're talking about the market self not not about what it's registered for the boat we're looking at the