speak to any topic that you if you prefer me to address in any order i'm not actually is not only allowing infringing marks to be used without objection for a lengthy period of time in this case the trial record below that they wanted to come up with something that it would stand for and they chose the phrase competition specialties because that like many business that they chose a name that actually describe their product which is a specialty parts for competition automobiles  that may well be true you're running yet despite the longer way and the significant reliance by the defendant on the use of its marker in that period of time the court dismissed scratches on summary judgment would not apply and by that that the growth was slow and steady so therefore lack of should not apply and it was a misapplication of the legal standard in this case i think the public policy principles become behind matters are cleared and the plaintiff is not allowed to sit on their hands factor factual test but we will say that we'll take a quick look at it and say that there was harm to plaintiff the plaintiff did not know about the defendant and that there was competition between the parties which would lead to the application of latches in other words it was reaching factual conclusions and in fact a mark and we were not permitted to to raise this evidence as a defense to the validity of the mark and i believe the court improperly disregarded it in deciding the scope of the injunction i think it's certainly we could certainly ask the jury for advice on that like we asked the jury for advice on intent and the judge certainly should have considered it in fact i think these fasten on to it as a matter of law and i must admit i'm not sure you court and after the fashioning an injunction is necessarily found by what the jury must have decided on these matters but we don't know today what the jury found if you look at the elements of unfair competition and the elements of trademark infringement as is likely to cause confusion as to the use of better services there's nothing in the instructions that said this only applies to this time period in this only applies to that time period instructions on their set they say that they are two to two claims that are close this thing trademark infringement is not per se violation of the washington the protection act you also have to add in some public interest level so in essence the jury found that no public interest was implicated by this you know no evidence at trial of any actual damages i believe so your honor i don't believe that that's what the what the case law says the cause of action are or what the instructions the causes of action are either the trademark infringement is you know a statutory u submission of any additional evidence relevant to latches and the court could could reach its conclusion at that point is that what you're saying that the injunction level is you're not attacking the very inconsistent jury verdict or your it's lacking essentially as and how it grows indeed if it were otherwise the course would be flooded with nothing but trademark litigation because there would be an obligation to file suit on the defendants is your appreciation immediately but here here's my question let's assume that contrary to your position we were decided that it was a mistake for the court to take out the the court will look at the record before it on last years and decided that there were no actions and any of that because of again public policy considerations the trademark lawyers affected uniquely with the public interest the public not just the parochial parties the public is to be protected and where they're identical marks in virtually identical uses and goods the court decided any of that that lack should  referred to an inconsistent verdict there is no inconsistency here the the jury instructions are seven pages of trademark instructions one piece of unfair competition instructions  different instructions different laws different body a lot of unfair competition is washington state trademark roy's use pedal or the court correctly decided in our view that well first of all of legal that the the trademark infringement impreciseness registrations registered trademark unfair competition many times deals with situations where there is no registration of the court said then it could be the time period yes based upon registration vs no registration not even sure we really have to grapple with the general rule about reconciling in the sense that we don't have a motion  that fisher made earlier that it's it's being urged as a consideration in the scope of the injunction and my right is that the right framework for  court has to be taking its word when the court in an injunction it did not do it on the basis that there was some inconsistent verdict what exactly was correct what exactly can the injunction require c s i order to do ordered in august by august of this year to phase out all used of the march c s i and until that time to use a disclaimer let it now that was again we would contend that was abus discretion for the court to require a disclaimer rather than then a cessation of use because the burden of proof is on the defendant in that circumstance to show that the disclaimer would be sufficient to ameliorate the abuse of discretion cases like this ordinarily i was given wide latitude your honor i would not i would not importunity a busy and hardworking trial judge with anything other than something that's absolutely necessary to want to ha burden of proof chips and at the trial we were not permitted to cross examine or on the the legitimacy of the claim deductions or how those figures came about that's why we asked for a detailed jury destruct instruction on the point instructing the curious of the kinds of things that should not be permitted as a legitimate deduction so what the jury was left with was a vacuum in deciding the issue off it tax returns i think were correctly done for purposes of the federal income tax law however for purposes of trademark law certain things should not be considered as a legitimate deduction such as pain or self such as activities that  aggravated the infringement and there is no instruction on the act and counsel was not permitted to cross examine with leeway on that very salient issue why not i don't know argue however that's no substitute i would maintain for direction and for a fair shot at in my point is that the reason there is a discretionary violation here in my opinion is that langer stand on that issue you asked some questions on cross examination the judge cuts it off at some point because the judge thinks rightly or wrongly that the witness really isn't knowledgeable about your honor the injunction fact in this case was overly broad considering the facts that that were developed a trial and junction should only extend as far as the harm identified by the evidence in this case the evidence says that the plaintiff is a wholesale dealer  shops who they admit are sophisticated buyers they admitted that they do not advertise or target and users in the marketplace for their products their concern is that they in fact help their dealers and this was their testimony they tell the dealers they will not compete with them with end users the reason that there was the only evidence in the record computer and it was hearsay evidence with a limited instruction that it wasn't the truth that was certain it was that dealers were upset when they act there were no damage isn't that there is no one for competition no actual confusion no actual confusion the record is hearsay evidence of the others we don't even have the opportunity to cross examine the dealers to find out what their concerns were or whether there was any damage and  our clients the value in this market now it's really resides with with our client they don't value in the specialty next product line with their name attached to it that's why they don't want to lose it but there's no evidence that anybody any of these motor has and i used the term affectionately because they indeed the record was clear that there were overlapping dealers so the very same jams the commas were present in in some instances and then there's the internet usage where they're still using c s i on the internet and you