that's been looked over throughout the briefing on the matter the lanham act protects trademark owners from acts of the friends went by someone who uses in commerce a marker that used is likely to fourteen of title fifteen and eleven twenty five day that they start court and the united states supreme court in two thousand and three made it clear that the nine hundred eighty eight amendment confusion as to the affiliation connection association sponsor or approval between the parts that happen both on summary judgment and the trial on the limited issue that was tried and that's a critical point this is not just and example is like my client sells three different products a record label management system which is designed to catalog organize provide reports for record label confused as the affiliation sponsors share connection and social action or approval of the products being sold by my client or by the other side now that's a little easier to understand when you understand that the record label companies that my client sells his record label management system too are the same companies that the defendant will sell their recordings to their intellectual property for that song so for example if there were a record label such as arrests that arrest them wants to sell us song that is owned by a publisher from and that another company it goes that publisher to get those rights but those rights come from the record label that  and communications is in the marketplace selling christian music records and that might be the only thing that the person i was thinking think i don't want any part of that when they're really the referral is talking about my client he sells record label management systems and music publisher management systems the question is whether those people offered by two different companies under the same brand have to be analyzed very carefully and the ninth circuit sakic and sweet craft that several factors are added to the calculus and they started with complimentary goods and services being offered by my client and the expansion likelihood am few communications so there's there might be some in your view there might be some things that are directly from heating and there are some things that are different goods and services that are so unrelated there cannot be confusion and if you want to stop that because your market so strong then you attack the other side under the delusion statute which is the state statute only recently adopted forty three chief that level of fairness but courts are very clear that you should not you should not do that analysis for a market have that's for arbitrary quality to it already you don't have to because it already has own product lines rather than rely on outside services it's quite possible that that will happen and i'll reserve the remainder of my time thank you whether the american market channels are similar how consumers view the markets how careful they are whether people think people might be expanding into it it's basically guidelines there are a number of occasions that say you know if you're have directly competing aren't aren't organized by are organized by record label nobody goes into a record store saying i want to find them to record it going i want to buy first printing i want to buy whatever your favorite band is or i want to buy i heard about this record called that's going to buy that confusion that they're confused in this case they license the software to specific companies they go over that to them and they actually personally install the software on their systems or they work and they process rights if it's a personal and then you're saying now suppose you have a very very small music company that sells at exactly the same market as yours would you be entitled to say well they're such small potatoes that we can come in and here's the same are no argument is that we should add or maybe your argument here is that i'm not really talking about reducing the strength of the market i'm just talking about whether that mark has had any use in any area where we're going to me i gaylord's perspective gaylord was dismissed on personal jurisdiction grounds are rules wealthy to motion early in the case and that's the only issue that i am addressing gaylord's involvement in this case is through a subsidiary of  the month before the waltz it was filed in several months before it was served with a lawsuit there is no evidence of any contacts by game ordered the defendant in the case but with the form was california there is no officers no telephone numbers get what's not registered to do business that they want has no bank accounts this is really a case where the plaintiffs is trying to confute the contacts of several layers removed former subsidiary to gain ward through just imputation and allegation and no facts i'm happy to answer any questions the court has but there's looking at the first of many complaint there is not even an alter ego allegation and a complaint is probably structured to argue that defendants know if something or defendants did something else there is no allegation and i was told that the way you get the nashville you have to learn to talk to you know but i don't detect any ten well first off i want to point out that nobody says they want to buy a record label i'm not sure you would agree with that if you're a publisher of music you do look at record labels and that's one of the things that will create the problems in the marketplace we're looking at relating affiliation association sponsorship amongst any layer of that marketplace not necessarily only the people who walk into a christian bookstore by the of a company as to jurisdiction the lack of an argument shows how tenuous the cases might ask for another two minutes to respond in light of the fact they went over twenty that's not a stock is briefs are set forth there is a connection between california and galas the two tontine group in the contents interactive group were both controlled by gaylord they were they were registered progressions in california doing judas in california my client would have to sue every division of instead it sued gaylord so the fact in a matter there is a connection there i think that the key point here was made by the senate in its opposition and that was when it said we are a non existant company existing companies or it's been in existence fourteen years seven years of which we've had to litigate over this trademark and we won't stop until the law says we're entitled to own it and we're entitled to prevent others from using it that's the key in one quick point is i think it's important that because this is the new counsel wasn't part of the district court i understand that there are that that there is a record here and there should have and that was before the court which labels i think at the license to was not part of the record and the fact that that's part of