to that includes a statute that says nothing about antitrust immunity and specifies that the u s olympic committee has the normal corporate powers to sue and be sued now this was an error for three different reasons first the district court misapplied the correct legal test for implied and he trusts immunity under this court and the supreme court's jurisprudence second its ruling was dangerously broad and out of step with implied immunity prudence and third it's factual assumptions or conclusions or findings over we want to couch them were inappropriate on a motion to dismiss now as to the first  implied immunity doctrine argument the supreme court has long warned as has this court about the need for caution and granting implied and he trusts immunities so for example with the silver case we learned that implied immunit or implied only to the extent necessary to make the underlying statute work and even then only to the minimum extent necessary subsequent supreme court cases articulated this test as requiring a convincing showing of clear  antitrust exemption is appropriate only when the regulated entity is required to pursue a particular course of action to comply with an identifiable and specific regulatory mandate now untel this case every court to analyze implied immunities under the n s a he did this guidance and utilized this framework looking for identifiable and specific mandates in the statute that necessitated the underlying activity so for example in the in the tenth circuit the court there analyzed the challenge to a would be olympians amateur eligibility determination and the court there concluded that implied immunity was appropriate because after all the statute specifically required us olympic committee and its in g p s its national governing bodies to rule on precisely these sorts of amateur determinations for purposes of the olympics council in your view what is the man that the us olympic committee may raise revenues might and then this statute supplies a vehicle to accomplish just that in the next subsection twenty two zero five zero six which is specific trademark put a protection and manner of advertisers on dance why isn't that included within the mandates that you've articulated and i think why are your are my response has to do with the specificity required to comply them unity is here that is in the face of congressional silence when it comes to any trust immunity under the statute we look under this court's test of the supreme court's test for specific and identifiable mandates that are that are not just the broad authorization here or the specific trademark protection and this task is not satisfied here when we're talking about the lack of fit between the broader general authorization and the specifics here after all the statute tells us nothing about local regulations the olympic trials athlete sponsorship for that matter and i think it's in stride does it have to does a statute path to in order for that to be included within the broad mandate of the statutory language i think there needs to be a greater level of specificity for purposes of implied immunity under this court in the supreme court's jurisprudence and i think if we look to the five cases that have examined implied immunities under the n s a we learned just that as i was saying before the g eight yes case the baja gun case found in the statute very specific commands satisfying this court's test and satisfy a supreme court's test for that level of specificity and in contrast you have into our court and champions world and the eleven lying case the absence of that fit the absence of that specific roles that you don't appoint to be the universe one applying the supreme court's jurisprudence on implied of unity principles to the particulars of the statute and so when you have a problem if the olympic committee pans all logos without exception so i think forms i think the patent unfairness that unfair marketing advantage that my client complains of would be missing in that scenario i don't think it would ultimately change the implied immunity analysis but i think ban everybody but allowing the nike swoosh means that they would then have to allow your client to advertise on the uniform as well is that the gist of your argument not quite your honor just my argument is that the implied  trust immunity analysis wouldn't change but rather the rule reason analysis on the merits might because after all as it currently stands dozens of athletes sponsors are permitted at the olympic trials run that there isn't a pro competitive justification for this current arrangement the status quo and run game further alleges that these same restrictions are not present in other u s sports at their olympic trials so to the extent that there was an outright ban on athlete sponsorship of this sort of the olympic trials one would hope that the u s o c and u s a t f after all are hoping to benefit the sport more broadly have a good pro competitive reason for that that  ban i also want to mention the district courts error in its understanding of certain addict in the j p s case the g s case made clear that once the court locate the identifiable and specific statutory mandate required of of implied immunity it won't further go on to examine the wisdom of the particular rule or regulation at issue and so to here we are not questioning the wisdom of the particular rule but rather questioning whether that particular statutory mandate exists in the first place and again given that there are dozens of athletes sponsors already participating in the trials and given that other elim pick sports the united states we allege permit that which is predicted here we think that's lacking the restrictions here are very much the result of independent initiative and choice as contemplated by the northrop case and for that reason undeserving of implied immunity the second piece of argument has to do with the scope of the district court's ruling despite silver's caution that implied immunity should be narrowly construed the district court seemed to locate in these various subsections the statute implied immunity for any restriction that might somehow implicate u s o c and u so ability to generate revenue and we would submit that is extraordinarily broad and inconsistent with the existing jurisprudence the every and you trust violation is going to implicate revenue in some of antitrust scrutiny and the the broad authorization is offered in these particular subsections ultimately how does the district court have narrow assuming the district court was correct in determining myriad ways in which the district court in this actually i'm plays into the next piece of my argument the district court essentially started finding facts that are contrary to the nonexistent record here and the allegations offered and so to the extent that the dishware was correct which obviously we disagree with that implied immunity adhere to under these two sects subsections i think it should have made significantly clear what conduct  is entitled to implied immunity and why it is that this ruling can't be used more broadly because after all i read this decision as an invitation to  committee as a result of the enforcement of these regulations well we know that for example that there are discrete bodies of sponsors that there is on the one hand a group of sponsors corporate sponsors for us o c and f and those are predominantly non apparel manufacturers but nike is among them on the other hand we know that the athletes sponsor currently limited to the approved apparel manufacturers and  trying to reserve for themselves a pool of would be sponsors who have no avail of alternative however inapt the substitution right with that but that doesn't answer my question about whether it results in any benefit economic benefit to the defendants we submit videos with this regulation to basically help the athletes out with no economic benefit to the defendant in which case you might have in force ability question when you're trying to bring in antitrust claim or are there allegations sufficient to basically tie it to some sort of economic benefit well we believe it will develop those as the case proceeds and we we feel that there are sufficient pleadings for that purpose but again  there is no requirement of a specific allegations of economic benefit for purposes of alleging an antitrust violation under section one and i see that i'm down to one minute remaining i'd like to reserve the remainder of my time for a bottle if i may  act to the extent necessary to make the statute work congress gave the olympic committee exclusive control over the olympic name and symbols the responsibility or mandate to use that o finance u s participation in the olympics and exclusive jurisdiction over all matters pertaining to that participation the challenge regulations which govern only what run gum freely admits that it seeks to advertise katha native chewing gum on the field of competition at the u s olympic trials to associate its product with the what it calls the how  provided by the olympic trials it recognizes that other companies pay for that right run government said once a free ride on what the supreme court in san francisco arts called the commercial magnetism of the olympic brand the regulations protect the olympic brand and the olympic trials from that type of an authorized advertising the supreme court has already gone through the legislative history congressional intent of the essay on these issues stating that u s o c is exclusive control of the olympic brand directly advanced congressional intent by supplying the united states  committee with the means to raise money to support us on the big participation pages five thirty seven to thirty nine of that decision the district court properly concluded following that supreme court precedent and the supreme court's decision and silver and gordon and three circuit courts that the u s o c and u s a t f must have the ability to quote preclude athletes from becoming human billboards at the trial that e r nineteen and if you look at the district court's opinion those last two paragraphs the district court is resolving that narrow question the question of the regulations at the confluence of a limbic branding financing for the olympics and matters pertaining to participation in the olympics they all come together at the u s olympic branded olympic trials and that's what that decision was about applications the antitrust laws would conflict with that broader authority to decide how best to  tell recognize that the various widely repeated refrains to use their term other community standard are limited or of limited value in application implied immunity should be considered on an industry by industry standard basis page seven twenty seven three circuit courts have looked at this industry and all come out the same way and the different articulations of that standard that we've seen since  clearly are repugnant unduly interfering or the supreme court's latest articulation and credit suisse which is clearly incompatible are all different ways to help answer the baseline question of whether immunity is necessary to make the statute work we noted all these different articulations in our brief rundown argues here that it is not questioning the wisdom of the particular statute but as p what they are doing and precisely what the j b s in gordon courts said are not relevant to the immunity analysis the question of whether or not there should be an exception for standard ma on the field of competition goes to the wisdom of the particular rule the question for this court is whether the confluence of three specific statutory provisions  provides sufficient evidence of congressional intent that congress did of course intend the united states olympic committee to have control over what athletes wore on the field of competition at the olympic trials the question was not as we saw on gordon whether fixed commission rates in that case were good idea or not the court refused to reach that against any different if the committee were to have a regulation that says well we get to pick who can advertise on the uniforms and not so you can have a small logo but yet company x you're not allowed to do that with that we have a concern it would not be an antitrust concern your honor it sounds like it would be implementing and licensing program at the olympic trials no different then of course the fact that olympic sponsors do have marks and logos appearing around the olympic trials and that is of course consistent with the san francisco arts decision and the second  license decision that's of course exactly what the united states olympic committee is supposed to do to generate revenues for to support team usa now if there were other concerns with picking and choosing there's nothing in the implied immunity that exempts united states olympic committee from any other law other than antitrust law but in terms of the antitrust laws the control over what athletes wear on the field of competition at an olympic brand of events would rise to an ability to pick and choose licensees and non licensees the and that goes to the fact that the district court didn't make findings of fact because it was it's clear from the record it's clear from the complaint that what run gum once used to challenge that specific control the control that you're on or just asked about and it needs no factual findings and to conclude following all of this precedent that impinging on the olympic brand using the antitrust laws to allow run gum to insert itself onto the field of competition would necessarily reduce the value of the brand and the licensing revenues from sponsors those allegations materials provided more than reversal they are they presented issues far from the epicenter of the a s a s directives to or of course involve pure commercial activities unrelated to any rule promulgated by the united states olympic committee horn and g b champions world rejected an effort to expand directives with respect to amateur or a limp dick outlet ics to govern to cover governance of professional event underlining the word olympic there without applying the regulations the regulations that run them challenges govern only an event at the confluence of the branding and the financing and the participation in team usa and that distinction matters to the extent usa wrestling hosts a non a limpid granted event even one that may determine in part or whole who gets recommended for team usa the regulations challenge here today simply don't apply but if usa wrestling or any other energy p wants to call its trials be a limp dick wrestling trials and to use the commercial magnetism of the olympic brand well then the regulations apply and then we a s a's exclusive jurisdiction grant to us o c immunizes from antitrust challenge those regulations by the same token the fact that the us o c can sue and be sued has no bearing on the immunity analysis many private institutions are afforded implied immunity and but of course can also be sued for any other law and that's the case here and the final point on immunity that i would like to make is that there is no bro on the field of competition at the u s a limb picked trials there's no suggestion in the district court opinion that any act of the u s olympic committee which might have any bearing happen to have any bearing on its finances is somehow exempted as well if there are no questions on community i did want to mention that there is an independent basis for a firm and which is that the relevant which was discussed a little bit in the opening is patently contorted to a single means of advertising that is a logo through athlete your honor just your honor just very briefly my friend mr lund when really leans heavily in his argument on some cisco arts and intel license the two supreme court cases that tell us nothing about antitrust immunity whatsoever but rather talk about the trademark protections and both cases in twenty two zero five zero six in both cases involve blatant trademark soft run gum is not accused here nor does it have any intention of misappropriating the trademark protections  to license the second there's the argument made below in here today and in the district court opinion that this will lead somehow to an explosion of advertising in the trials we don't challenge the size quantity or placement of these sponsor identifications that already exist we only ask that run gun be given the opportunity to compete for these opportunities for athletes sponsorship unless the panel is any further questions i thank you for your time thank you counsel thank you  to both counsel for your helpful arguments in this case the case just argued is submitted for decision by the court