area the the point of being that the term fiesta is not any descriptive term because you're not describing a party surprise you're right when you say the term you're describing this particular event that happens the third week in january and it is intended to celebrate puerto rican culture  h an and make the street better and nicer and all that kind of stuff that's ok so with respect to the events that led to this lawsuit which happened what happened so then when the mayor meets with the committee in two thousand and fourteen and march of that year to start planning for the next year's festival she points to two of  the members of the committee and says it was either you or it was you who said that i turned the whole city into a big bar what are we going to do about this and so it's our contention that now for deciding the next year the committee was going to be excluded from any sort of involvement in presenting the musical events and event was one she you know my started to push them out and bring in people who are supportive as it turns out not only of her agenda but of her political campaigns that description it also sounds like a description of what you're saying it was the mayor who was really running the fair and deciding on what it would be like and in fact your client was publicly announcing  the world that the reason it was the mayor's fault that there were lots of ours so it sounds like it's the mayor's mayor according to your client well and there's no doubt that and we sa the beginning of the complaint there has always been collaboration between the mayor's and the company tell me you can't have a festival of this you know level of hundreds of thousands of people coming to the small look the city obviously contracts with whoever is going to run things and the arrangement had always been that the vendor lies the city would allow no local meeting to if the if the community have been allowed to have the kiosks it would have cost me one thousand dollars to put on a musical production here the mayor gave that contract to a producer had who had contributed to her campaign and who put on that musical production of one hundred forty seven thousand dollars there is no evidence as to why there was you know that was allowed to happen and of the com me the mayor required that they have all the secretary forgets which is proper but with respect to another of the producers she allowed them to participate and gave them a contract for a hundred seventy six thousand dollars even though their certificate showed that they had not file their tax returns in two thousand let's assume the committee has a different vision for the fiesta than the mayor does he has more family oriented wants a traditional exhibit that's the wrong vision convey or say well that's fine you get your vision i've got mine i'm the one running this and so i'm going to have the partying which means i'm not going to have when you hear us what's the first amendment  action well i mean in the o'hare and omar cases there in of the city it was there was trucking and how you're dealing with the airport but they had different positions on how they were alone to do things but the supreme court said you can't cut them out because they criticize the way you want to run things because that's the nature of the first amendment we get to say we don't like the way you're doing it  and if are responsible then this is just my policy i'm having a big party and you're i don't but i was never in any explanation for and i think what you're the point you're missing with all due respect is that you can say we have different visions but you can't say i'm going to align with somebody who's charging me this much more money to do it after you criticize me that you know i'm violating your con your first amendment rights thank you everything from security  it's an issue of secondary meaning and that is an issue that they did not secondary meaning as any other trademark determinations of fact contents of the terminations and requires a certain a series of your question about the boston marathon i have no idea whether the boston marathon is in fact a trademark and i would think that maybe the boston marathon has a separate meeting beyond just because  different issue than boston because boston has its own particular characteristics and new york marathon is a marathon of many like chicago providence wherever but they and they also like the have been a sole source for the the mark because the new york road runners who registered the trademark yet they call the number and collaborate with the city of new york to present the marathon every year my other point about them would be that they were doing it for forty years before they registered the trademark response to council beneath his  requirements but you cannot do so because they make contributions to your political campaigns and you can't do so when they have violated the law in terms of the requirements that you say that they have to have like filing your tax returns i had one question i meant this earlier so let me ask you now with heath and elkins is there a reason that you notice of appeal only appeals the denial the motion for reconsideration as opposed to the underlying summary judgment rule well because the court addresses all of the issues raised in the motion for summary judgment even though