under rule four k two instead of pages twenty four and twenty five of history he claims that our reliance on that must fail because the allegations of targeting united states to me as though there's a case that we decided that's pretty close to this one act called schwarzer nigger versus it's arnold schwarzenegger versus fred martin motor company aggregate the national contacts with the state and that's what i was going to address but in answering with respect to whether or schwarzenegger governs the colder issue which we raise the answer we respect we say no for two reasons first of this court where this court can't overrule an earlier decision ok as a matter of law unless it's on bunk so you're saying don't follow schwarzenegger because you the gov that mr schwarzenegger at that time who was not the governor was a resident of the form state then you can't say you're targeting the form by targeting the plaintiff and in that case this court that's what this court held that they did not know that and therefore it would be targeting this court and bancroft master said even if an act is outside of the state and i don't think that's what we wrote maybe you're maybe you could point me to the language that supports you i thought we focused on whether the ohio car dealer targeted california and your honor you're absolutely correct but in that case if if the plane if the if there was an allegation that the defendant knew the plane that was reciting california then the hotel or the case would have been different it would have said that think we would have written a different decision if we thought the ohio car the targeted temple beach in the us that looks like thing with pebble beach they don't play golf there's no golf course it's a bed and breakfast in a barn cafe and then they don't target the american market they don't advertise in america about all i can get out of the brief is that it's kind of a tourist tourist and location tourists go there and some tourists in england or americans is there more absolutely because we a in the complaint that went on controverted that he specifically targeted the united states market through market with his website and not only did he target it and like argot the us market with a website i guess you could advertise newspapers the internet he had an internet but there was no evidence that the defendant in ohio and schwarzenegger sold anybody in california but in this case the evidence is uncontroverted that his in europe that's correct that's correct out fornia the largest state in the country i mean yeah it's the largest state its sixth largest economy in the world correct and we're not saying that merely because we're not saying that merely sales in the united states they didn't controvert that they did not even do sales as their primary market and the third circuit court was a spanish website and that in the case we cited was the toys r us she said that she didn't have any conversations on an e mail which is what we have latched and that was pointed out by professor galper you know that's where they advertise she says they don't advertise in any publications directed to the us they advertis the echo why hampshire local paper that was of a brief this would also be able to get jurisdiction over the cafe  at the us anymore than they targeted tanzania because because the target was they knew that was pebble beach was a famous marks and not throwing this court said that when the court went to defend it takes it well no you are using a mark that's well known by the plaintiff and you in fact in order to try to get business in the motel case there was advertising a well known name barbie they said advertising united states including and they said that lawsuit against the little teeny operation i probably beach in u k but that's that's i'm glad you asked that question because because the knight in trademark owners are jealous about controlling their reputation is if a failure to defend a trade name somehow could work against you in sublets subsequent los angeles became the nature of you know latch is or something but not only that but there's issues if you don't believe that happened if you say if you own pebble beach and you sit back many cases so if you don't police your mark against third parties you're the scope of your markets narrowed ok and so they have they do not want to just like if someone tells a lie about somebody takes a million dollars a million times th who are using it so you might be limited to golf courses and not bed and breakfast in bars and cafes or or that's right and so and so the fact that there is there is an entry i mean that's the claim in access in fact if there's a use court my name is michael condon representing the defendant michael patty in this case the district court correctly held that it cannot properly exercise jurisdiction over mr cathy i'd like to address mr trotter's point that we did not controver a beach is allegations that mr caddy's primary target was the united states so i remember in twelve b one and twelve b to see the court isn't bound by the allegations of the complaint that's in its will be sex it can beach he also has a website that the lower court found to be passive that describes his pebble beach cafe restaurant and bar those are the jurisdiction painted we do to return to the point that we've controverted the limits of the allegation that mr kennedy targeted the us we submitted declarations that stated that mr caddy had not received any visitors from california we submitted declarations listing out where mr caddy did advertise five publications locally and as the district court found those placed his advertisements no further afield than dorset county england which is over five thousand miles away from california but the part that intrigues me is his choice of dot com the other side says when you choose dot com necessarily you're trying to get is a individual in england an individual in china can purchase a dot com donate domain name and not be targeting the united states a dot u k is a national i think they come up on google just indifferent to whether it's u k or dot com and it's just according to so you can see if it says now you're starting to test my technical knowledge of the internet here but it sounds good to me this is what kept you up late last night right i don't know if there's any specific grounds under which pebble beach has a sort of jurisdiction that you would like me to address here there any evidence that any american had ever had a beer there or anything i think there was evidence no american had ever stayed overnight there or you mailed them  american to contact the place we did there is no evidence that any american has contacted through the internet again i don't i'm glad to address the effects test you talk a little about held that the fact that in ohio as it may have known that arnold schwarzenegger was located in california could not be something more that the effects test requires in its dr the fact that he inserted pictures of arnold schwarzenegger into local advertisements were not true was not a direct aiming at the form of california simply because he knew or could have known that arnold schwarzenegger was a famous hollywood actor located in the state of california the same result must occur here where mr caddy may have known that pebble beach was a golf course located in california but directed advertisements no further afield than dorset county england decorations pages at fifty eight to sixty of our plate that contradicts the declaration that she just referred to second if you say excerpts fifty eight to sixty about majority brief talks about that if he really wasn't targeting the u s is targeting the u k he says i'm sorry in those pages that he could have selected a a u k domain name which is i'm sorry one eighty k is is available and this is an as again allegations of the complaint and he said explains that that information was available and there's the targeting based on his marketing i want to just correct something else i'm looking at what i think you pointed me at and what he says is if the defendants primary marketing was u k then in my opinion it would have purchased and used these u k domain name is not a us domain name or to that's what i