es in this case we submitted to the court the reversal of the judgment of the district court is appropriate in this case and compelled by to this court's precedents first the false which the infringement took place or more sixteen two thousand is that grip the allegations are two fold first as force trademark infringement of  are continuously repetitions of dollars that were previously published in fact what we see are only advertisements were published in two thousand arriving in two thousand and twelve when the handover ensured one peak i case we have no common identical idea that runs from advertisement to advertisement at least not one that we can see from the allegations of the complaint advertising ideas would have been misappropriated and that the complaint undoubtedly says that new products came out in twenty eleven and those isn't the prius that are being put out there tassels the complaint is not sufficiently specific for us to identify what all of these advertising ideas are beyond the fact that the underlying complaint specifically says they're all multiple empathizing ideas they were misappropriated over the course of time and we don't have a point of reference to make a determination all face of the complaint about whether for instance of all of these advertisements that are attached to the complaint and are part of the complaint are actually repetitions whether they be their ideas for the course of time without it being a single for instance in the case of a pond in the case of disparagement it's easy to tell where the disparity where someone is  disparaging somebody continuing over time it being a similar state however not so sure we have to identify individual identifiable designs that would apply to each one of these items earlier that these people started doing these bad things and there are basically two common themes using the navajo name spelled either with a short period or basically passing off their products as fake indian products by using various motifs and designs that people associate with native americans throughout the time frame for march of zero nine and to the suit was filed in two thousand and twelve it's claimed one set of cause of action sort of causes of action  trademark infringement trademark dilution violations of the indian arts and crafts act in unfair competition there is no suggestion that after cannabis policy took effect on july seventh two thousand and some new cause of day but but at least as early as march of zero nine every one of these companies began marketing its goods in this manner and that's the nature of the allegation recovers the defense obligation possible that something could have happened on your watch on him and on hand over those policy did your are no and two reasons for that one of them being we don't know based on the allegations that the there were two separate advertising ideas that were state one of them being a psycho chihuahua and the other was a chihuahua poking its head out of a hole or something i'm not quite sure that i understand fully the ramifications of the d if you know some of the cases talk about purpose behind this rule is that you know once you've taken offensive action you should be able to transcend the cover you after the act but suggesting that are out there is knew what they were doing was illegal in two thousand and this is so it's not going to be a measure that i build it but still there was a course of conduct that began roughly a year and a half of for ever what on the wrist and that changes the have that under coverage this place is some limitation on insurers liability so you don't just check policy after policy after policy if it goes on for twenty years at the when when your company was engaged was  not urban outfitters knew they were doing anything wrong by this i have no idea and that's not that's not really the point of origin when you look at it in arts and crafts claiming there were and added more products you're creating additional damages to the navajo nation by doing so you're not creating additional course and there's no allegation here that that's so the substance of the of the advertisements is all the there are different products i think is what we're talking about and and the course of pretty uniformly rejected the notion that a prior publication exclusion is going to put people simply because different products are involved again the street urban outfitters i do want to know bed as judge amber was inquiring earlier there are five individual urban outfitters entities that are named in this complaint even though the complaint just uses the generic term defendant misappropriation yes that's what judge posner found and that's exactly what we have in this case nation finally your students are in matter once again i i come back to my initial point and that is we cannot evaluate whether the petition exclusion applies unless we know that there is a repetition