jury awarded a five million dollar verdict for willful trademark infringement against the company who owned incontestable trademark federal trademark registrations to the mark trademark infringement damages for violation of a state common law trademark that was senior to the federal mark and if that if that's accurate they say that's the case but that is the issue and the reason why that makes it all the more critical why there was a violation of basic due process in how the trial was conducted because when the on that exact issue the court fourteen witnesses that testified before the judge initially granted that motion is that correct and i think it came from from your opponent so on but is that correct i don't think it's a matter of the number of witnesses that tell the it's important to start with because if that's the case then at least those witnesses testified at a time when the directed verdict hadn't been attard so there would have been no reason for for you to hold back in examining those witnesses or presenting whatever evidence you had on on whatever what the evidence might have come did come which brings us to the remaining witnesses and the issue there seems to me to be what effort was made to asked the court for permission to elicit that evidence later i mean it seems to me the judge made the usual inquiries about anything else and there's the perfect opportunity to stand up and say well yes your honor we have this evidence which we didn't get a chance to bring in because of the directed verdict we'd like to bring it in and the court reasonably says  was or anything like that there there was nothing in the record indicate the trial counsel requested after his case to close that he be permitted to reopen his case and she to defend on the trademark and then after that then the court reversed directed verdict decision and so and so basically we rely upon her the supreme court case that says basically it's a reason then after the chord changes direction after the court says ok i've changed my mind there's a reason for someone to make a profit of evidence or submit evidence but it's not for me to understand the arguments that evidence was excluded if evidence wasn't offered because you would not i i think that's with curtis trying to get at the basically a fair trial counsel you're presenting your witnesses and you grandstanding your testimony in arguments in a particular way to the jury and if the issue's been removed from consideration then the way in which you parties can hedge in currencies if they want to eliminate currency fluctuation risk and if they don't do that and they owe somebody money in dollars or yeah or in rubles or whatever and you know whe n it comes do they have to deliver normally the currency that's that's i don't think that that's an issue in the spirit of the issue the issue really here is that the parent corporation sold the the company subsidiary that owns the trademark rights and so they can't since the agreement did not make specific reference to the trademarks the question becomes was the transferred with it when all the assets and liabilities were so and the answer to that is that if you the trade market only go girls with the goodwill of the company and when you trademarks behind their back which was in committed fraud on the parent company and that was found not to be true when he was president of the subsidiary walk back to america but my question is there an answer to my question as to what the jury had on that issue i i know the jury was aware they're not interested in evidence that was excluded for any reason i know that it is in the record that  communicate with lasek japan concerning the the registration and the the requirement to put the little circle are on the to the name in the future what was the evidence concerning that communication put before the jury i believe marks in commerce from all fifty states if they hadn't there was before america registered the names for a federal trademark and why wouldn't they have a common law mark that would only trump the trademark registration in the states in which it was down that there was substantial sales stash so and continuous sales to recall the directed verdict was based on the continuous portion that is of the district the court and rendering its reversal of the jan well provided ample opportunity to the loo defendants to make whenever accommodations were necessary to present evidence and in fact the record speaks what efforts i went to to make sure that i had an opportunity to parties entered a distribution agreement which were control of their respective rights related to the trademarks that a trademark license existed that the trademark license continued after the purchase of the shares by make the point that the applicants did not disclose what extra pay what take japan's ownership rights in the mark in the application and i understand it's contested as to whether who have got rights in the united states all the time but let me pose the question what if the disclosure had been made what would have been different about the better expression i believe of the trademark and patent office and there are several opinions that are not in the brief would have to make an inquiry as to who was the actual owner of the the trad it there's still that still wouldn't necessarily affect common law trademark no no no no and we think we own the rights they knew we own the rights that's an admission of the agreement that's an admission you made to