impression based on the evidence presented the central issue in this appeal is whether the board has given rd party registrations absent any significant evidence of use their proper weight in determining the conceptual end of the commercial strength of the registered mark following this court's two thousand and fifteen decisions in the juice generation and jack will scale cases said person to person isn't this the situation where you have a singular and plural cooler and cooler the apple gets more of his coolers with a z yes at the end the what makes this case unique is that rd party registration evidence submitted by the applicant which consists of about three dozen rd party registrations more than ten of which feature cooler itself the others feature or some other variation of call for the same goods that are at issue here headwear and apparel goods and so what makes this case unique is the op gets reliance on those rd party registrations to show the weakness of the cooler mark that the regist absent any additional evidence of rd party use it's the us riccio's position that absent that evidence of use the applicant cannot demonstrate the commercial weakness of the register mark the board's decision dismisses any of that topic but nothing in juice generation or jack will skin says that use evidence is required by providing evidence of use it for an application is an expense and a burden in an ex part appeal and an application process where the registered mark like here is clearly contained in multiple use based registration fees that are on their face highly suggestive and weak the register we should be giving back for me the right i think that overall the standard of the us substantial evidence but i think that there is a matter of law here where the board and the government reli three discussing rd party registrations and they discount the analysis of this court in the juice generation and jack will skin cases from two thousand and fifteen and it's important to note that in both of those opinions in two thousand and fifteen and jack will skin and juice generation both of which are interparty as cases this court there's no discussion of the prior decision from  misplaced and we believe therefore that the finding that it is that the weakness is only slightly in favor of public and was misplaced you know these trademark cases of her in fact intensive indeed and you applicants when they're going through the application process of the u s p t o as thousands of them do every year and in order to address cited registrations like here are the applicant with the cougars mart had to address a cited registration for cooler and the burden of how much evidence is necessary to show that that cooler mark is significantly weak here we believe that the evidence of record which again consists of more than ten rd party registrations for the identical goods that also feature the word cooler all right enough to establish that that cooler mark is weak both conceptually as a result of dictionary definitions and the fact that it's used by multiple other regular registrants but also commercially because those registrations that have been issued by the us p t o that are of record are in this case are use based to registrations those applicants in order to achieve those registrations had to submit specimens of use that were reviewed and accepted by the us p t o examiners those registry those registrations also had to submit declarations supporting the statements of course in the application including the evidence of use on the goods in the applications of no the reg the cited registration here for cooler is based on a foreign registration and there is no evidence of use in the record anywhere of the cited registration because it is based on a foreign registration overall the board found the weakness of the mark waid only slightly in favor of applican the border now is hysterectomies contradicts jeff jack will skin opinion of this case when discussing the commercial weakness jack while skin says quote extensive evidence of rd party registration is powerful on its face even where the specific extent and impact of the usage has not been established also juice generation again also issued in the summer of two thousand and fifteen by this court admonished the board because it quote overlooked this aspect of the inquiry by insisting on specifics as to the rd party use the board opinion here dismisses the rd party registration evidence when it comes to considering that commercial weakness and again they cite back to the a m f decision that's more than four decades generation opinions do and while they may not have been explicitly overruled by jack going to just generation they have clearly been they've clearly been updated the principle and applicant is and a successful manufacturer of industrial and commercial products including helmets and head wear for safety use in industrial uses those maybe have more distinguishing factors but they all coexist along with the cooler side it registration but the point is that the fact that they all co exist we believe that shows that cooler is extremely weak and that not only is it weak conceptually but that it's weak commercially because it's been adopted and it's been registered by board then ten parties for the identical goods and again those are all used to base regist not done that here because there are expenses and risks of burdens involved in doing so that that could be an option but we believe that ex parte if the examination should be sufficient to to overcome that refusal and to allow the market for approval of course if the market is approved and the registered and she believes that there is a conflict they would have the opportunity to file  save the rest of your time for you morning on is may please the court i just wanted to make a couple points here one is that my friend on the other side said that here knowledge is that the board found that the mark that was cited as a blocking registration has a restricted scope of protection and has weakness but what he wants is that a finding that is extremely weak that's a factual of basically a quibble with the factual findings that the ford made which we think as you pointed out earlier is something that's subject to the substantial evidence review and is not something that can be done or re found in a different way by this court the nd thing is i want to point out that the juice generation and jack wilson cases respect the difference between just like the prior precedence that respect the difference between the of the the issues that rd party registrations go to and the issues that rd party use goes to and they both ultimately go to strength but rd party registrations go to conceptual strength rd party use goes to marketplace strength and both of those cases respect that they both have passages where they talk about registration and they talk about use and what those particular things can show case it does cite both of them and it follows both of them and makes precisely that differentiation notwithstanding the fact that it ultimately decided that particular factor in the favor of the applicant here may be useful or maybe even be required to show when it comes to rd party registrations and use and commercial weakness so more guidance as to what how much use and what type use would constitute that there's not a in depth discussion of the nature of the use in jacmel skin or just generation and again the court in those opinions makes it clear that you said registration is quote powerful on its face even where the specific extent in impact of the usage has not been established and no one more time here that these rd party registrations here that feature the word cooler for the identical goods that are issue of both the registrant and the applicant or use based applications that have been approved and vetted by the us patent trademark office of course overall in a dupont analysis and a light weight of confusion and analysis any one factor can be dispositive and we believe that had the board got it right and given more weight to the findings of the rd party registrations and found something more then it slightly favoring applicant in this and had they found that it strongly favored applicant as to the weakness of their cited registered mart then we believe the proper