reserve three minutes for rebuttal your honors in this case it was clear air for the district court ruled that use was not required to maintain a federal registration particularly when none of the exceptions under fifteen u s c ten fifty eight applied or even argue achilles as a special master had noted in his report recommendation the maintenance of the five five zero one registration was merely punitive particularly in fact of the special masters factual determination that  appellate was no longer using the mark in the registration patsy's preet pizzeria had had a federal registration for the markets his pizzeria a few years ago but this was lost in large part due to arguments made by the apple e in front of the trademark board that had his pizzeria had lost interest in maintaining its registration while at the same time being aware that in a earlier appeal for a different case before this court the parties were hotly contesting the registration and language of the injunction i think that the the district court adopted the special report recommendation for these purposes whole cloth the special master when he was referring to something being outside the scope or the mark was the i don't think that the special master even considered whether the mark not the registration which is distinct that the mark was outside the scope because the injunction as the district court made clear repeatedly the injunction is you are patty's italian restaurant you're patsy's pizzeria he said that is my order is transferred to create a language of the injunction enjoined the of new york was used to the district court concluded that wasn't what the more what the injunction had clearly prohibited and so it decided not to not to impose or not to find the party camp why is that i disagree that that's what the district court held during the january two thousand and fifteen contempt hearings judge areas took the time to read through a large portion of his opinion an order where it went into more detail as to the underlying  the opinion is not the injunction and we have made clear that a party can be found in contempt only if the injunctive injunction order is clear and unambiguous in what it is prohibited and so i don't know where you've got anything in the injunction other than the prohibition on the use of the mark patsies along during the january two thousand and fifteen hearing judge areas ok anything else the only other thing i would add your honour's is that as admitted by the up early in their brief in this case they are required to use  on clearly mean it told the parties what they were to use but where did make clear that that was clearly exclusive i mean i asked that because if they had changed it to you know x y z pizzeria i don't think you'd be in here arguing that they have violated any injunction so you've got the judge telling them you use patsy's italian restaurant you use patsy's pizzeria and there's an injunction precluding the use  perfectly aware of what the injunction side because in the original us here the injunction clearly says that not only could they not use patsy's alone but that the only thing they could do was refer to themselves in the way judge alluded to at the hearing because in the hearing and in the paper submitted by the district court in his opinion in order he says you were joined from using patches alone without any other identifying w referred them say to themselves as x y z pizzeria they would they would be in violation of this order no it's not the more descriptive elements of the party's marks that are at the issue the issue is the use of marks including the word patsies if if they refer to themselves as for example they wanted to use patsies right deter you with anything else yet it during the hearing for example argued what we think we are entitle to use the mark his restaurant pat's is trying to toria because it patsy's italian restaurant is a mouthful or words to that effect and judge reyes was perfectly clear that his instruction to use patti's italian restaurant was not a suggestion that was his order all right thank you we'll hear from your requires clear and convincing evidence before the district court there was no evidence at all either at the trial or any hearing or anything any other place regarding patsy's of new york it was not the subject of any order it was not the subject of any judgement it was not a subject of any testimony witnesses documents or anything else it was a registration that our client had going back to two thousand and six well known to the pizzeria because it was cited by the trademark office against them they took no action there was no activity whatsoever with respect to that mark and i'm quoting you were ordered to refer to their restaurant using the marked patsy's italian restaurant now what made you think that you had the ability to refer to yourself as something else it doesn't say italian restaurant you were ordered to refer to yourself by that it was not in the injunction it was not in the order it was part of his opinion it was something he said at a hearing but the bottom line is we are using pat italian restaurant our client the restaurant uses patsy's italian restaurant on all of its signs its menus its website and everything that it has it says patsy's italian restaurant we are in compliance with the on the record but we are also using both meaning much the contacts for the two names well i think the easiest thing is to look at the signs or some of them some of the signs just say patsy's italian restaurant others have a composite mark you can see it on the menu which is part of the record which page the record yes your honor it's eight eight seventy five but what we are doing is we have a composite it says patsy's tell you in restaurant it says of new york below what we believe in then below here it says patty's italian restaurant of new york so we're using patsy's italian restaurant there's no violation of any injunction or order did you ever use patsy's of new york without patsy's italian restaurant it's always in a composite form sometimes it's in a different location but italian restaurant is always adjacent to patsy's and of new york is adjacent patsy's so we're using a composite of both trademarks in c and the canopy and the yes next couple of canopy it's it's uses slightly different but basically it's got the same words in new york in pants italian restaurant of new york so there's no clear and there was no clear and convincing evidence in fact it wasn't even argued that there was anything wrong about patsy's of new york they are seeking relief regarding a mark which was not the subject of any order or judgment it wasn't even within the spirit or scope of any judgment or order it was beyond the litigation as the special master and the magistrate judge so found it's they or their entire brief is an argument about what should have happened before the trademark office that's a registration issue it's not the subject of an injunction it's a matter which is raised before the trademark office indeed the trademark office recently considered that and concluded that we had sufficient use of patsy's of new york to maintain the trademark registration that goes back to two thousand and six your honour's we submit that there is no contempt there's no abuse of discretion that the arguments indeed border on the in substantiality of an argument and just in passing one sentence a good part of the opponent's brief is the voted to hominum attack upon myself and my law for i'm not going to respond to that and hamann in attack but i believe that it was improper and has nothing to do with this case we asked that the district court's order be a master made clear that the parties were not to be going to each other's locations so we have been relying on the special masters policing of it to that extent and what's the answer would be no but the fact isn't just that the the use or the non use it goes to the fundamental aspects of the trademark law that if you are prohibited from using a mark you cannot have  one nine because the failure to meet allowing them to maintain a registration for a mark they're prohibited from using is an abuse of discretion it rests on legal inaccuracy and is outside the bounds of that market began to become a problem and we had raised it with the court and then the appeals happened and we were occupied with them and other avenues as well also the purdie the uglies are not of itself without the inclusion of the italian restaurant there is no record that they are using patsies of new york stand alone corrects and they are prohibited from using it and that is the basis for the district court to invoke its powers and of the lan to direct the commission or to cancel the registration because you cannot maintain a registration for a mark you cannot use it so the violation you're here claiming about is them using patsy's italian restaurant of new york no your hon on earth are you complaining about you just said to us they're not using patsies of new york the problem is that they are maintaining a registration form mark they are not using that they cannot use as they are me you are asking for the  registration to be cancelled as as a consequence of their contact so we don't even get to cancellation of the registration until you tell us what they were in contempt of the maintenance of the registration and it's of itself is a concern because you cannot maintain a registration without using if there is anywhere in a registration junction tell them that they have to withdraw our registration where does it clearly establish that obligation i don't think it's the obligation of the court to set forth every possible know the contempt for acquires the order to be clear as to what is expected so where does it in any way suggest that there has to be a withdrawal of registration it's