the trial court made it clear error in determining who came st to him using atlas logistics as a trademark in commerce in doing that it ignore a w i statements to the trademark office that it st use the mark on december rd two thousand and twelve the trial court also ignore the testimony from here so far this seems like an argument that the district court should have credited your evidence rather than that of your adversary in course we review actual i that's that's just problem it was not a situation where the court looked at our testimony and compared it to someone else's testimony the testimony of the founder was an rebutted the court just ignored it there was nothing in the cour decision to credit that statement is as if it did not exist and i think if if not counting or not even credit the statement of the founder of atlas just  from what leads you to say ignore is it that the court record in its judgment and decision never mentioned it is that the grounds for saying it was ignored honor and so the court ends in the in the final analysis the court gives a rationale for choosing to credit atlas bam lines i'll call it short here and right in that rationale was what why do you think that's inconsistent that rationale that the court did employ is somehow inconsistent with the idea that the court never actually mentioned the other i believe it is in the sense that the court crew the trial court credited a two thousand and seven brochure be a reasonable inference that would be a reasonable inference to be under understood by the district court but i have a brochure no competitor i don't know i don't i think i don't think so your honor because there was no testimony to have been used continuously in commerce as it must so even if it was used in two thousand and seven it had to have been used continuously but the evidence did come in your honor that a w g i had been using other entities for its logistics services like titan global distribution a double easing entities were just other names weren't they for the for the what will call the consolidated company they ended up using i don't know i thought that maybe i read that there were that there was a consolidation of entities under the new name a w right  there was a consolidation correct your honor in two thousand and thirteen approximately under atlas logistics for the us exact and in fact that's really our point is that before then atlas a w g i had never offered itself presented itself to the public as a logistics company through the word outlets or even atlas logistics it when it was how did it sell for logistics use other names like titan specialized transportation g logistics but never atlas or atlas logistics and so not only was it not using atlas logistics before two thousand and thirteen to market to the public it logistics services it was actually using other names affirmatively for logistics and we from two thousand and five onwards as a testimony in the two invoices to customers from two thousand and five we i believe show continuously were or did not have any testimony to support it you know none of the witnesses was even in the marketing department of a w g to actually talk about this is how this you know brochure was treated this is how it was sent out this is too late when we got none of that but we did have on our side the owner st yeah i founded this company in two thousand and three it began doing work in two thousand and five with customers and here are two invoices that show mark in atlas as attached to our whole bunch of things in the transportation industries atlas as applied to transportation things belongs to your competitor is what the district and if that's true then i'm not sure why we need to worry about who st used atlas would just x if they st used atlas in one thousand nine hundred and forty seven and you don't contest that and the district court found and that extends to all kinds of transportation uses that it doesn't matter whether that's a mother at with logistics whether you st use that two thousand and five or two thousand and establish that it was using the word atlas as a common law mark it wasn't a registered mark and it is a common law mark in the forty's or the seventy's or whatever it's at it's have all for logistics to identify to the public that is a supplier of logistics in the transportation industry then we lose i mean we lose but to find that one would have to find that from the forty's of the seventy's a w g i was actually treated catering to the public alice logistics or atlas as a source for logistics and that just hadn't been done again not only had it not been done through the word out lists or through the word atlas logistics but they were presenting their logistics through other companies like specialized transportation or little what about the argument council that would just takes in one distance trucking to move let's say  really basic to move household goods that load logistics you almost can't do it without logistics that got more sophisticated over time  undoubtedly but you have the routes you have you know over the road drivers there are what what supports the trucking the moving of the goods would be called  the modern term logistics right i will own an atlas i think that's judge larson's point if the company own and used in commerce atlas then i logistics not go along for the ride so to speak i don't think so your honor and i'll tell you why i mean i hate i use logistics to get on to this call this afternoon i mean logistics is a very broad term but ok companies are one so within moving there is logistics getting your kids ready for school is just explain what we're talking about is a company that's presenting itself as a transportation broker as opposed to actually having the trucks to to move so if i don't have the right truck i can you know use my logistics arm to find the right truck and basically be a match maker that's how it was being used primarily and for that use it just hadn't been done by it through the t us logistics until two thousand and thirteen by a w g guy that was precisely what we were doing and what the invoice is that we presented show those invoices were actually to other trucking companies to match them to loads that needed to be sent we were doing that as early as september two thousand and five so it really it's the identification by the customer of the name atlas logistics or atlas with that logistics service and that just brief that opponents filed is full of words that the court overlooked evidence to on to rely on it ignored it they have the stronger evidence their evidence is more persuasive and these are verbatim quotes we have a trial that's what the trial was for the district court made a detail finding after seven days with two hundred dollars and some odd and he's gone there is not a clear error in there what the opponents are complaining about is that the to fail to acknowledge slash mentioned slash you know that's the argument here what is this court to make of the fact that it doesn't appear in the in the trial and it's nowhere considered in the district court's opinion there's no identification that the trial record contends contains evidence x with a side to the record and yet the district court's opinion is barren of that i gave him credit for it so help me as we read the brief your honor we could not find a single instance where the appellant was saying here was some evidence that we presented to the just report and yet it doesn't find  in the district court's opinion you claim this i believe it is your honor i mean if it is saying that it didn't credit it that's one thing in other words that's just a sort of realty germination if i may that case but rejected that evidence as limited didn't consider it and i'm convinced and this was a trademark case and so there's a difference between ignoring it as if it never entered the record and considering it putting it in your opinion but simply finding that it's not as credit worthy as other evidence that's what's going on here in other words this is trial number two and the standard of used doesn't allow for that it's clear to some evidence and got the result it was on to by killing the district court weighed every piece of evidence that was in front of the record came to a conclusion based on its way and right now the only way that the appellate can get around that is text explain where there's clear error in those findings we haven't heard it i would also like to pick up judge larson's point because it's actually based dispositive and that is the whole issue of priority and the the  and close enough to the mark that the defendants used that was logistics and the logistics part of it doesn't fact add nothing of distinction to it in fact another one of this court's cases explains why in the in the see  generic component that doesn't distinguish for the consumers any difference between b m s and b m if wheels this is the same if the defendants are saying if the pills are saying rather that their use of logistics somehow transforms their mark into a mark that avoids confusion that violates this corsi of the c c if you case but also think about it from the consumer standpoint why would a consumer think that atlas trucking but all of the logistics services how do we know that what does tick services are in there and maybe the travel agency or atlas air isn't like how do i draw that line of what you o i think i think d for one thing your honor the court need not find that line because this was well within the traditional trade mart one of one law i mean we're talking about a company that has operated transportation logistics services my client and another company that operates transportation logistics services just as the words sometimes what just explode the marks are damaged so we need much longer outer limits but i will say for instance if somebody opened at the shoe store you're hearing me i'm sorry i'm sorry my sister showed up and i talked to her about what that we're seeing she needs to know the six circuit sorry  so so everything that all these questions that your honour's have raised about the similarity of the services and whether law just experience a different mark that's exactly what we tried that's what actually the trial record contains in and how these companies operate in the marketplace the likelihood confusion there's no clear error on the findings and it fits well with the standard trademark in fine enough and once the court finds that the likelier confusion binding is proper there is no issue on where that becomes moot so i'm happy to alice alone for household movie trey forty which the acknowledge they have that's their baby wick and separately file several years later for atlas logistics is a separate markets because there are different to the whole reason isn't it the fact is that they it has commercial value the name right here for that maybe it was an extra step that the company i don't know where they got wind of some other uses of atlas would do sticks perhaps by you but they as a defensive move is that not an industry definitely but i think it's important to realize there's a government database on our on line database accessible to all the company to a courts to take judicial notice of cults say for a sadist fiar as of yesterday there were four hundred and ninety one dollars active companies that had a atlas in their name within the transportation industry if atlas own the th owns the word atlas all those companies are subject to infringement your honor it's like united van lines telling united airlines it has to stop using united because it owns united in the transportation industry it's a weak maybe but that that's a little bit of a i mean maybe a little bit of a stretch right so what it does mean is maybe united airlines can tell united trucking that they can't get that anymore right and i think mr consumer would think and that's what the district court proud that they were part of but a market where it's maybe the airline and the ban liner so that's really different that nobody would be compete and the fact is with four hundred companies using it they picked you you know so i mean the action is against your company for infringement they didn't choose three hundred others right but they just maybe they have we don't know we don't know but we have to a new company name new employees it why did distinguish atlas logistics from atlas had gone before it wanted to get out of the van lines business and into logistics more that's why it changed the brand and there was no continuity toward the public names we thank you both for your argument i will consider the case carefully