is too broad because it covers truthful statements and the court affirmed the injunction as it stood and said essentially it covers not only well statements but true statements that have a false that's what the the panel said the st time through that that may have been a mistake as well but that's the law of the case i'm not sure how you can come up this go home and say that was a mistake the panel should in advertising whether explicitly or implicitly but the difference is that it again you know an injunction needs to be limited to a legal conclusion and that justified it implicitly false statements are but you know i think what's important here on this issue is that given the challenge statements and summary judgment leading up to the injunction we don't with literally for a state it's specifically i think it was the does not fit within that narrow necessary implication doctrine that is affectively an expansion of the injunction and his appeal as a modification were you so i was assuming you're right here's here's the question that you were trying to get to and  cut you off so let me close my difficulty for you the district court ordered further proceedings look at the docket apparently discovery is still ongoing there is no contempt order here is no  standards as long as they didn't do x y and z and i guess i understand your argument to say that we have to listen safley to what you hear and so to an extent the just record is now when you say that your customers are ul certified you're implying that you are and that's what i'm stopping you from i think it's that statement it's not your customer list it's your statement that your customers are  judge except judge watchers characterization of your claim that in effect the court extended the injunction and modified and it's now considering what to do to you because of that why should we east coast lightning at like you just address to jurisdictional issues quickly and you may have questions i'm not sure it's our position that injunction was not modified language is included in the injunction regarding explicit and implicit advertising and so arkansas under thirty but i'm positive because i guess i'm inclined to disagree with you both and i'm sort of in agreement with you on the language of that your opponent was going to be allowed to do in compliance with the injunction is pretty much what they're trying to do now and so just adjust that theory that if we renewed our two thousand and eight how could that be anything other than a modification the way i would argue it in explaining your honor is in the th circuit decision you i think you have to read into it discord affirmed in all respects so to make it consistent you have to read the cabbie have to say so long as they do not use such evidence to support  confidence over and above whatever the competing products are on the markets like all others now if you were a customer thinking about buying an okie seems product as opposed to your clients product obviously you have to sell more of their devices the name of their company is national lightning protection their web site this is in the record perhaps simply was mistaken about its brand criticized the merits in this for saying so the st question in my mind is one of the district court in looking at what your opponent did here assume for a moment that the customer list that they advertised didn't say as this went as some of the terminals are ul certified my question is if they'd only given up their customers this is our customers through actually who stayed with violate the injunction yes because the in arms our position is argument is what it's saying indirectly is we protect our devices can protect open space if that's your position we if we get to the merits don't you have a real problem is it is it really it we go to say that yankee stadium is my customer or sea world is my customer so long as there's an injunction that bars the implicit statements or advertising is a better word because what we're dealing with here that it does protect the anky stadiums if that is barred and implicit statements then there's a problem with that advertisers imagine something this is from judge silver judge silver had to deal with these issues when a different plaintiffs was having problems as well and we brought it to the court's attention judge silver said in her decision in two thousand and eight this language meaning the i language this language clearly includes advertisements and promotion material that make an implicit claim of a greater area of protection and is within the core of the injunctions command i think what you customers that claims that their systems protect open spaces all they're saying is that these people have done better due diligence and determined that in deciding which of the competing in advertising they're not making any statement about your thought that missed their promise to to protect their spirit just by listing the customers who were purchased a product that is not in my view even implicitly touting some  not making some claim as to that you have to go check with the purchasers of the product if you wanted to to verify whether or not it was effective maybe fifty people at one of those places got killed by lightning strikes i don't know  they're saying is that these people decided that they want our product and that's in a puts a truthful statement why i don't see why the market should be the product of that information that just search me is a real overreach on your part to try to prevent them tagline the protection source their website address which says the protections force to me they're sending the message and that's what the the judge  decided as well that they're sending a message to these places can be protected by our device and we're not just talking your honour's about a child's toy and whether one wind up toy works better than the other we're talking about lightning protection protecting human beings so it's not just an innocuous or simple issue here about how their advertising was present and i can see especially with judge wofford i respectfully disagree i think they are making a the stadiums the golf course and the news with parks are protected by the national lightning protection company and their device because if the protection source you know has one other question that i just city building departments and cetera et cetera so i'm still i'm still just stuck or not sure what your position is on appeal the bill so it seems to me there's two there's two ways for us to approach this one is to say well the would go back to my original question if it were just a custom nothing more their website simply said we have many satisfied customers including the following would it violate the injunction in your view you asked me two questions let me quickly address them if i could as far as you said i've never answered the question about jurisdiction i don't think it was modified that's twelve or ninety two and it's not a final decision there's never been a finding consumer confusion or or any other relevant confusion recalls advertising so the prohibition of any complicit statements needs to be extremely narrow in the sophistication of the customer needs to be concerned categories and again you know we just don't have any evidence or even any any analysis based on the sophistication of relevant audience that would support anything other