knowledge of this credentials and i'm satisfied that each assesses the necessary qualifications i would just bear that those the magic words that sort of after the spoken to get everything done i would just add a tiny bit of gloss and saying that the issue there's two issues in this case one is what's the effect of subject matter limitation on the identification of goods we have three applications here one high three nine and fourteen in is that subject matter limitation meaningless in the subject matter limitation is all goods are associated with william adams professionally known as well i am the second issue well i would disagree with that because no limitation is limitations that are placed in registration or not necessarily before the consumer for example in the empty software case it was women a to our the products he is seen wearing the products there are quotes from mr adams that help sell the products he's in the look books interviews with in the press about his clothing line the i am clothing line which according to the examiner by the way class twenty five is related to three nine and fourteen based on the third party registrations that he submitted in each of the applications and mr adams says that we've introduced evidence of  he is not sold where he is but his promote it it's the same the language they chose to put in the limitation is directly from eleven twenty five a the association part in the persona cases that go with that so it's a broad concept consumers know when a product is associated with a celebrity or a sports figure or some them on those warrants so to answer your question when a consumer sees the i am products like they see that i am clothing they know that meaningless but was meaningless why the internet it's purpose why are we entering things into the record that are unnecessary but what you look at that subject matter limitation it changes the nature of the goods and one of the examples i gave in the briefing was it's difference when a white associated with metallics a very different product once you put that subject matter limitation in your way and the in the board is required to line up what the good say in the registration with the meaning of the mark so when you do that it creates a totally different meaning the i am which i think everyone would concede is a very common phrase and used in many different trademarks that we've seen in class fourteen or one and we have meaning of i am  twenty five products all have some reference to mr adams so in order to know about the clothing you see that it's marketed and then that draws you in that store if you're just walking through the store and you're looking through the rack there  licensed product they're going to and the way they think it's a licensed product is because there's a connection with the swimmer to the line cannot do that fish cannot do that then make a c c or cannot do that by law fake and a right of publicity in forty three day they cannot draw that association with mr adams and that would preclude a consumer for making the connection but how does the board reconcile that you have three i have marks in class fourteen all for jory but they don't bracelets not made of so it on how is it that mr adams cannot co exist with i am when he has limited his identification of goods to be directly associated with him and all of these marks of codes this did with mr adams well it's sort of pretty it's proven a negative there's no real say reese that there's no evidence of confusion in and plus years how do we show that there hasn't been any when there hasn't been any and all we can say is there and like i said when you're a celebrity they come out the woodworks if there's a problem and there hasn't been on this i've got a couple minutes left i did  matter limitation had any meaning which it should have it didn't they still could refuse registration based on reversed confusion but admittedly there's no evidence at all that was submitted by the officer or us with respect to the fame or lack there of the registrants marks how can you get to a finding every verse confusion with no evidence of all at all that's our point and that from the alternate basis that even if you agree with this on the good morning to may place the court of begin where my colleague left off this is highly unusual this is a textbook likelihood of confusion case you have identical marks for identical goods in it changes who the consumers are how it changes how the goods are market it it's not like he's saying i want this mark only for authorized licensed merchandise sold only at concerts where will i am perform there might be an argument there i don't think it's enough in the civilian control law to the effect that a qualification like that is of no legal consequence yes there is your honor that that's the normal rule a later in the statute is the prior registration you get the rights and presumptions under section eighty for the mark that shown in the registration and here we have standard character marks or a stylized mark for the goods re cited in that registration and we have to give that registration its full scope in effect and all the presumptions that entitle to a political for the split scope of goods it covers so a later applicant who wants the same mark for the same good normally cannot avoid a likelihood of confusion but there have to be instances where someone can be bought and in this case it seems that your friend has come up with a number of arguments and a situation with the  advertising with these goods are marketed in association with mr adams and i don't know what i'm not a consumer of these products a service i'm not sure what she needs but if they're really even marketed in stores and frankly although you have three registrations it's the script one that has largely the overlap with the products here at least and the other one that's identical to that is very limited in terms of products right covers jewelry probably on the other registration that was mentioned forgetting that which when i was a st germain i think it was that has it big design with it you don't really see i am this part of that and that is largely why that refusal was was withdrawn because the dominant part of that mark is not the words i am here with mr adams coming in for i am in standard characters and to address just another sort of assumption that that council we have evidence that he owns a registration that he acquired by assignment for the mark i am for clothing and the fact that he does all the stuff marketing in the real world and how consumers counterfeit products in the real world we cannot opportunity from the evidence we have before us of confusion to occur and confusion with respect to his clothing is wholly irrelevant to whether i am for sunglasses is confusingly similar to i am for s s in effect he's asking for an exception to the registration rules for celebrities and the hypothetical that might just help this resonate a little bit more if there's prince sporting goods  they own a registration that's over forty years old and the mark prince for tennis rackets let's say the state of prince rogers nelson professionally known as prince decides they want to start selling tennis racquets and they want to get a federal registration for prints for tennis rackets if you accept everything that amount to saying here we have to give them that registration it's just not the law that trademark loss protects the prior registrar against a newcomer and of all the marks to choose if he wants to be i am he has mechanisms to acquire the rights of the prior registrants or enter into some kind of licensing arrangement but we cannot simply because these will be in some way associated with that has we have no way of telling what that is on the face of this application and it doesn't limit in any way commercially meaningful for the consumers or channel so traitor distinguish them it's just that it's it's legally wrong  and who they're sold to in a way that would matter commercially but again even in those cases where applicants try and do that if the prior registration contains no restrictions and it's the same otherwise the same goods you know some glasses are still sunglasses that we wear to protect our eyes no matter if they're so shared with a celebrity or and that we cannot give them a registration in in that context at the other thing i did want to mention that rolling stones came up that that situation is entirely different there was a consent agreement in the record there the goods for different as well for publications versus the the rock band and entertainment services associated with them and the parties there had entered into a worldwide  delineated how they would use the marks in the channels of trade we do not have a consent agreement here and finally i would close with this is not to say that if it is a consequence of the consent agreement does that mean that it has been approved by the office or the parties are free to enter into their own consent agreement and justified by it so the consequence of the consent agreement is that it can in a case like this where you would have sort of textbook likelihood of  relevant evidence that might convince the office that oh how these parties have agreed to say amend their applications and registration and how they're actually using the promises that they've made to avoid confusion that might sort of outweigh what appears on its face otherwise for there to be confusion but normally you know it's just a piece of evidence and the analysis not every consent agreement is going to overcome a likelihood of confusion where it otherwise  appears on the face of the application registration but it's something not just takes into account particularly where the goods are different they might be related but where they're great where they're different and again we just don't have that here so unless the court look at the depart factors and and in depart the court said that the overlap in the goods potentially one was for all purpose cleaning detergents and the other was an automobile cleaning to they're going to be subject to breach of contract and infringement and i think that an infringement is important here because if the registrants were to go into mr adams line of goods which is goods associated with himself  registrations class twenty five is related to nine fourteen and three it's all over the registration so that to me is an important fact that the court should consider in terms of this we're not looking for  show the connection i am with him to give the meaning to the subject matter limitation that we put in and again this this thing we just it's from forty three a is is where i devised the limitation because i can't i'm not going to put imitation printed you know using quotes mr adams wearing every tips different type of thing that he could possibly associate himself with this products because that wouldn't