because these marks are very very different and our clients mark as a french term under this court's case law in a import the average consumer would stop and translate this mark peak i was just going to ask you about what is a store within a store as i'm just jumping into the channels of trade and i'm wondering i don't see that term necessarily defined i'm wondering if there's anything in the record about what it store because this particular perfume is part of a seven nd election or sold as a set and they're also marketed as if that may have an image of the display case where all the perfume would kill her that is you were absolutely within a store as one was at a high end shopping mall in orange county california and another was that the deal it dearly departed i mean bendel in new york they had this is this is a restriction right on it is a restriction that's right that's a there is evidence on the record that there are cheap but specialty conditioner which is targeted and specific care secondly it is and it's our job to look at the registration and not just think about it because the registration does channels of trade right we have to legally and what they already had to do legally was think of that registration as covering all channels of trade that might not not necessarily mean that it would be sold in a louisville time store within a store but that it could be still in the same store perhaps as the store in which the louisville time store within a store is located a shopping plaza it's within a plaza i believe they set it up in sort of in time and space they created a store and like in the center of the mall that was w mean that and they took a section i mean bendel and they set up walls and the walls were branded with levy time and they had this particular display at five hundred and seventy nine was one of the wall the boards there could be over i mean trade at least in the store in a store so i'm hoping to understand we're turning understand what store within the stories too can you help us understand that referring to evidence  argument that it's not in the same shit or a trade because it's a separate store ok well then x x accept your argument you know but that's what that's not that i mean it only helps you so far in the right we still have to the board relied  fact that you would miss it then this was sold in the store within the store and we can't figure out what you're talking about let me let me put my cards on the table ok when i read this and heard about store within a store i thought about high end shopping  stores not that i guess i'm very often but maybe to buy presents for people like nordstrom and andre but dell is way way out of my price range for places like that where you have separate counter for high end perfumes and cosmetics and those are separately branded right and they're separately manned by people that may even wear uniforms corresponding not to nordstrom's but to whatever height and perfume mor and those are what i thought the everybody mint when they d were talking about stores within a store and why the boards because that's part of the department store even if it's separately brand that and separately sold within another department question about the the method of sale of your product and their product it's not about case law it's about that what are the facts here it's clear to me that you're a printer on the other side it arguing that there contingent or can be sold d in department stores along side yours even if it's sold d at a separate counter store within a store and what you're argue and that's to me that's the conclusion the board actual conclusion the board made what's your evidence to suggest that that doesn't have substantial well i would i would point to your case in a report which says  your products and their products are sold with the same channels because they can both be sold d in a department store you're not we're not addressing that as a legal error because that can be correct we're addressing  to show us what a store within a store is and why a person wouldn't be why there wouldn't be similar channels of trade just because the two different products are sold in the same store one being within  only i said i was going to get one last ride but i'm going to make it one last right can you give me an answer that points to something in the record other than five hundred and seventy nine or eighty that demonstrates what you believe the todd store d within a store d looks like and how is a matter this discussion of what the story should look like america and isn't it that it's irrelevant because this is an export proceeding to begin with good morning may please the court it i don't know that i would say it's irrelevant it's it may be irrelevant specifically what louisville tang does except to the extent that that would show generally what a store and a store concept is but the relevant inquiry is a more general assessment of channels with respect to both the registration and the application at issue and so it is relevant to consider what the limitations are in the application and what the board did here was take the words in  application as evidence of what their trade channels restrictions were and said that a store than a store concept can include sales within department stores and if if there was a difference if there was a different consideration that acknowledge that there is a distinction in the channels of trade with respect to the particular louis of aaton stores and a louis baton website and so they didn't they didn't find that those were overlapping trade channels and then they said so the only one that the overlapping trade channel is found by the board is the store was in a store is that correct that's correct one thing i didn't see in the board's opinion was a discussion of why there would be confusion or sold did you see that discussed in the board's opinion i'm not sure that i understand the question so i may just frame it so that i make so that i understand it so a particular discussion about the registrants and the applicant's goods being sold together in the store or well i thought that was the whole point in the end i'd like guess where i'm saying is where do you think the board addressed whether there would be confusion  the board discusses beginning at the bottom of eleven through a p x twelve the over lack and the trade channels with respect to the store within a store and they st talk about the both traditional brick and mortar an online department stores as relevant channels of trade for the registrar and then they go on to say that a storage in a store partnership could include those both brick and mortar and online department stores and i do want to and so if you have more services or read so if you have retail they're working at a page you're looking at page eight hundred and twelve at the time i am yes or no with respect to the other factors all the boards factors were supported by substantial evidence and the board channel restriction i didn't think it was talking about louis but times channel restrictions louis baton is at the register that's correct but then they get sort of halfway down the page that the board doesn't sort of a slightly reversed because it has to in clude all of the channels of trade for the registrant so they conclude that there would be we cannot conclude that there would be no overlap in channels of trade between africans and registrants and then they're citing that cases that support the notion that they would be just so they say i'm going to interrupt you for a minute where it says we agree with louis the time that louis the times stores and website are special a straight channels that do not overlap with the ordinary channels of trade for registrants products however we find otherwise with regard to louis the times story within a story partnerships with high end retail stores within  exclusive distributor network we're here do they talk about that including websites they i understood that the entire discussion i was referring to that earlier discussion was referring to high end retail stores and they give examples of both brick and mortar and on my department but that's that was in discussion in connection with registrants channel trade right because that discussion you were talking about on the top that's correct your honor and i apologize i as i mentioned traditionally we would read without i was specific instruction to brick brick and mortar we would read i think compassing on my understand what you're saying to me i don't see the what you are stalking about is that that leave a ton specifically branded websites don't overlap with these with their websites or things but if they sell goods in online end retail outlet that was the point that i was making out of but i want to become particularly clear that that's what and i mean about me i want to be clear that even with respect to brick and mortar to the extent that there is some that there may not be complete clarity with respect to on stores often sell the types of goods that issue we consider this a trade channel appropriate for the goods and therefore one in which we presume registrants goods would travel that i think is the heart and soul of the board's analysis finding that there's overlap in channels of trade but the problem i'm having with it is it doesn't really get into the intricacies of what is a store within a store why is it that somebody at nordstrom's or what have you would see you know one product in one location and one product within louie of the time store within a store in think that they are theirs and there's  trade channels overlap because the stores are of the type that that the product can be sold and in addition we have evidence in the record and this also goes to the relatedness of the goods that these are the types of goods that are weather conditions no other considerations have to be moved that is ok that sufficient for there to be same channels or trade big is that right i don't know that i would go so far to say that and i would be careful not to say that because i think this court has been clear that that it is not always the case that sales within the same store is deficient and riccati is an example of that where in a grocery store you may have a wide variety of different items and not just evidence that said would be relevant when either goods that are used together or that are sold under the same mark that would support the trade channel the additional trade channel finding and because they're otherwise you know milk being sold in one part of the store in other words being sold another yet those who were goods there were human who'd versus dogs right so that was that with that question in that case and the other factor we have here is that they wouldn't just be sold in the same stores a b c it's all in the same stores right that we have evidence in the record that shows the sort of beauty part of the internet website and that these are the types that would be sold not just in the scene you know sort of rd floor versus car but at least sort of in the same general we address a similar issue in in the case in ray detroit athletic company are you familiar with that i am here on there and there we said indeed the owner of an unrestricted registration that's what we have here has an imposing limitations on its own registration whereas the applicant has imposed limitations on the  said which is that the board really didn't get in to the intricacies of a store within a star partnership that's what they were focused on they said if there's a venn diagram of overlap somewhere or some consumer could possibly go into identification that would adequately restrict the identifications at this application could be three published and then this the story issues perhaps could have been interested in opposition system which is the path which is the proper forum for dealing with really thorny issues of stores and their registration has no restrictions and yours if you know your market includes high end retail stores at least or within stores in those fairy tales or so there's at least some overlap there in in trade him balls and we have to decide whether the board structural finding that these types of goods are similar enough and sold in the same type of trade and also have substantial evidence on  that's it nothing further we don't actually have to look at the goods we can have a broad notion that if you put something on your body and a cosmetic way it's part of your beauty regime and its related but our case law supports the idea when you're looking at us to just look at the think that your emphasis should probably be on your own registration which does have limitations right right so we tried our best to get this through and i think if you take the government's argument to its logical conclusion the register is growing exponentially ten percent per year at a certain point there's not going to be anything in the consumer products but if we take the proposition that anything you put on your body or in your body if it's affected are related because it can be part of your regime and that's at issue here so that app the appellant limited its trade channels to its own website its own store and if there is marrow exception where they had introduced the perfume in the high end store within a store and they said to the boards case law and put in evidence and those images that what those stores are because they had just watched it they don't have a huge history of doing this because they haven't produced perfume and seventy years it's a very exclusive collection of her