[00:00:10] Speaker 00:
Presenting Judge Gould, may it please the court, Robert Collings Little on behalf of the plaintiff and the appellant, MFIB.

[00:00:17] Speaker 00:
Your Honors, this is an easy case that the district court made hard. It turns on 12 words at the end of the Lanham Act, Section 33B5, codified at 1115. Those words start with the...

[00:00:38] Speaker 00:
These words, provided, however, that this defect or defense shall apply, and the 12 words are, only for the area in which continuous prior use is proved.

[00:00:54] Speaker 02:
Well, it may seem unusual to you, but it seems to me that you're assuming that this is a nationwide treatment. On what do you base that conclusion?

[00:01:07] Speaker 00:
Well, Your Honor, we have a presumption of validity. We have a presumption of ownership, and we have a presumption of exclusive national rights.

[00:01:16] Speaker 03:
So let's assume that they have shown, however, prior use and privity. So let's assume that they have shown prior use.

[00:01:25] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:01:25] Speaker 03:
You're now talking about geographic scope, correct?

[00:01:28] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:01:29] Speaker 03:
Okay. And so I'm trying to figure out from this record how the district judge was supposed to know what areas to impose it and what not to impose it.

[00:01:41] Speaker 00:
Because, Your Honors, the appellee, the defendant, provided an argument that B-5 applied, and then they identified... And by the way, I'm not sure I want both sides to address this.

[00:01:55] Speaker 03:
I don't see how B-5 applies. B-5 only applies when we're talking about a junior, a junior right holder. And here... If they've shown privity in prior use, they are a senior right holder. But I don't think it really matters whether B5 applies or not.

[00:02:15] Speaker 03:
I think everybody agrees that a prior user is entitled to priority in the geographic areas where they engaged in prior use. So I'm trying to figure out how, in this case, the district judge was supposed to know that an injunction should exclude those areas and what the record shows about what those areas were.

[00:02:39] Speaker 00:
Well, Your Honor, to the extent, first, to the extent Your Honor said that B5, Your Honor does not think it might apply, I think then Your Honor may be indicating that SANS, IBCA had common law rights, which would be T. rose rectinus.

[00:02:58] Speaker 00:
Stone Creek said that the analysis under B5 and T. rose rectinus is now the same.

[00:03:05] Speaker 03:
That's right. That's why I don't think it makes any difference whether it's B5 or not. We agree with each other on that. My question is a simple one.

[00:03:15] Speaker 03:
The law seems to indicate that a prior user without a registration is a senior user in those areas where they used it geographically before. And as I read the record, the other side put in some evidence that they've used it geographically in some areas.

[00:03:34] Speaker 03:
Did you claim that they use it geographically in any other area?

[00:03:39] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:03:40] Speaker 03:
In other words, if you had said, well, wait a minute, they're infringing because they're not just using it in the areas of prior use, they're using it in other places, Dubuque, then it seems to me that you would have a probability of success on the merits of that claim. But here I don't see that you have a probability of success on an infringement claim because there's no evidence that they have used it anywhere outside the areas of prior use.

[00:04:11] Speaker 03:
By the way, let me add, I'm not sure it matters, because you can always go back to the district court and say, wait a minute, we didn't put on this evidence before, but now we have evidence that they've used it in Dubuque, and we'd like an injunction.

[00:04:25] Speaker 03:
They're now using it in Dubuque, and we'd like an injunction against them doing so. But I'm just trying to figure out how we can fault the district court on this record for saying that you haven't proved a likelihood of infringement.

[00:04:36] Speaker 00:
Mr. So, Judge Hurwitz, what I'm drawing from your question is your Honor does not think that MFRG ICON is entitled to an injunction stopping likelihood of confusion against ICON builders and them using that mark. But the record, they did present areas. I understand your Honor's concern.

[00:05:02] Speaker 00:
The defense, let me start this way.

[00:05:06] Speaker 03:
You're not entitled to an injunction against them, assuming that there was prior use and privity. They are entitled to use it in those areas, correct?

[00:05:14] Speaker 00:
As a senior user. As a senior user.

[00:05:18] Speaker 00:
But the court must limit the defense.

[00:05:20] Speaker 03:
See, that's what I'm trying to figure out, and maybe I'm trying to approach this case from a practical matter. I don't think your friends on the other side dispute the principle that they're only entitled to engage in continued use of the mark in those areas of prior use.

[00:05:38] Speaker 03:
And I'm just trying to figure out what we're supposed to tell the district. You can go back to the district court and say, please issue an injunction limited to prior use, or we can just affirm and you're still perfectly free to go to the district court and say. So you both seem to agree about the extent of their rights. And I'm trying to figure out what the appropriate solution for this is without telling the district judge. who wasn't, I think, presented with any evidence of infringement in areas other than areas of prior use, they're telling the district judge that he somehow screwed up here.

[00:06:13] Speaker 02:
And how can the district court have screwed up without having had the opportunity to determine whether senior use occurred?

[00:06:23] Speaker 00:
Double questions, Your Honors.

[00:06:25] Speaker 03:
Answer his first. I've had too much time.

[00:06:26] Speaker 00:
Yeah. Your Honor, on this record, the continuous use is only proven in California. With respect to the other states, there was one after the frozen date in Lakeway, Texas. There were two projects. But in Arizona, Washington, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Mississippi, Maryland, Oklahoma, Georgia, there were either significant gaps of non-continuous use.

[00:06:57] Speaker 03:
I'm asking you here. to assume for purposes of this question, that they'd established prior use and continuous use. In other words, you lost on that issue in front of the district court. You argued to the district judge that their use wasn't continuous, and the district court found that it was, that because of privity it was continuous. We can review that finding, but we'll review it at this stage with great deference to the district judge. I'd understood you to be making a different argument.

[00:07:28] Speaker 03:
was that the judge should have issued an injunction that went to those areas that they hadn't engaged in prior use in. And is that what you're arguing to us? It's both, Your Honor. On the first one, maybe that's the question Judge Smith was asking. Why did the judge clearly err in making that finding?

[00:07:51] Speaker 00:
Well, first of all, Your Honor, Your Honor went to the abuse of discretion standard and specifically clear clear error for findings of fact. I don't think this is a findings of fact because there is absolutely no findings of fact regarding geography, not a state, not a city, not a zone. There are no geographic findings of fact whatsoever in the judge's order. The district court skipped that analysis entirely. That is legal error.

[00:08:22] Speaker 02:
It was the district court presented evidence from which it could have drawn evidence the information you just discussed.

[00:08:30] Speaker 02:
And the question, Your Honor, is did the- In other words, if in order to prove the case, you have to show geographically where this was used, was the district court provided with evidence from which it could have said there's a continuous use in these places and therefore the injunction applies there?

[00:08:53] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor, but starting with the premise of your question, It was not my burden to show continuous use geographically anywhere. That was a defense.

[00:09:05] Speaker 03:
Well, but they did. See, the judge found that they did. The judge found, they said, we've been using it in various places.

[00:09:11] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:09:12] Speaker 03:
And the judge found that they'd shown continuous use.

[00:09:15] Speaker 03:
You're attacking that finding. And I'm saying if you're attacking that finding, we review it with a fair amount of deference to the district judge. I understood that you were making a second argument. Even assuming the judge's finding is correct, the judge should have issued an injunction preventing them from using it in areas other than those in which there was prior use. Are you making that argument, or am I just mistakenly reading your brief?

[00:09:41] Speaker 00:
No, I think that we are making that argument.

[00:09:43] Speaker 03:
Okay, and that's the questions I've been asking. I'm trying to figure out how the judge was supposed to know that you wanted Well, what evidence is there that they are using it in another area?

[00:09:56] Speaker 03:
Now, start with my premise that continuous use and privity were established. Is there any evidence that they're using it in another area, in an area other than in what the judge found for continuous use and privity?

[00:10:10] Speaker 03:
They provided a chart. No, just tell me where they're using it now that they weren't using it before.

[00:10:17] Speaker 00:
On this record, California...

[00:10:20] Speaker 03:
And after the frozen – But see, your California argument is based on your premise that continuous use wasn't shown.

[00:10:27] Speaker 03:
The judge found that continuous use was shown. So you can attack that finding and we can deal with it. But I'm trying to – let's assume that the judge was correct in finding that there was continuous use and it was in the areas that the record shows they had used it in the past. Why are you entitled to an injunction prohibiting them from using it in areas where they're not using it?

[00:10:50] Speaker 00:
Well, Your Honor, first of all, I don't believe that the district court made any geographic findings whatsoever. I agree. Agreed? I agree. Okay.

[00:11:02] Speaker 03:
But it seems to me, once they establish prior use, the question in my mind is, do you have a claim that they're infringing in any area other than prior use?

[00:11:14] Speaker 03:
Whether the district court made them or not. I just want to know what your... Let's go through this...

[00:11:19] Speaker 00:
The states, Nevada, Oklahoma, Colorado, what Your Honor is presuming – But they're claiming prior use in all those places.

[00:11:27] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, yes, without showing any evidence.

[00:11:30] Speaker 03:
I don't think that – Okay, but again, see, I hear your first argument.

[00:11:34] Speaker 00:
And I'm not trying to wrestle with you, Your Honor. No, no, you're making two arguments.

[00:11:36] Speaker 03:
I'm trying to – You're making two arguments. Yes. The first argument is they haven't established the requisites to become a senior right holder under the prior use doctrine because they haven't shown continuous use.

[00:11:49] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor, except for purposes of this appeal, I am willing to concede California, the 176 projects in California.

[00:11:57] Speaker 03:
As to those other states, you say even though they didn't show the use was continuous in those states.

[00:12:02] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:12:03] Speaker 03:
Okay. Let's assume I reject that argument just for purposes of discussion so you don't have to go back and make it again. I'm now trying to figure out what evidence there is that they are now using the mark in any place in which they didn't claim Prior use.

[00:12:20] Speaker 00:
Well, I think the answer, Your Honor, is in Stone Creek at page 436.

[00:12:24] Speaker 03:
Now, the answer can't be in another case. I'm asking about this case. Is there any evidence that they're using the mark in any place other than the places where they claim prior use?

[00:12:37] Speaker 00:
Yeah, well, for example, Your Honor, Texas, Nevada, Arizona.

[00:12:42] Speaker 03:
But they claim prior use in those places, right?

[00:12:48] Speaker 00:
Do they claim prior use in those places? Yes, Your Honor, they do.

[00:12:51] Speaker 03:
Okay, so this is why we're having trouble.

[00:12:53] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:12:53] Speaker 03:
You want to go back and fight on the first issue, and I understand. We'll get to that issue.

[00:12:58] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:12:59] Speaker 03:
I'm trying to figure, if you lose on the issue of continuous use in all the places where they claim prior use, and you lose on the issue of privity, then are you making a claim in this case that they're using the mark in any place other than the places where they claimed prior use?

[00:13:18] Speaker 03:
Put aside whether they proved it to your satisfaction, other than the places where they claimed priorities.

[00:13:24] Speaker 00:
So, Your Honor, am I allowed to have a preliminary injunction as a national registrant in Maine or Hawaii?

[00:13:30] Speaker 03:
I'm not asking about entitlement to anything else. I'm just asking about – it may turn out to be irrelevant. I'm just asking a factual question which you don't want to answer. And so I'm asking you whether or not you put it in, assuming that their claims of prior use are valid and that they were proved up, do you have any evidence in this case that they're using the mark in any place other than those areas of prior use?

[00:13:57] Speaker 03:
Well, Your Honor, I have a map. It's on. Just tell me what state in which they didn't claim prior use that they're now using the mark.

[00:14:08] Speaker 00:
In my mind, there is no state other than those that they claimed in which they are claiming prior use. Thank you.

[00:14:16] Speaker 03:
That's all I needed you to say.

[00:14:17] Speaker 00:
And I'm so sorry it took us a long time to get there, Your Honor.

[00:14:21] Speaker 03:
Okay. Now, your position is you're entitled to an injunction nonetheless as to those other areas because they might use the mark there.

[00:14:30] Speaker 00:
Correct. Okay. And, Your Honor, the legal principle, I understand, Your Honor, I said no, this case – not Stone Creek, but I did want to point out that in Stone Creek at page 436, the court said that the geographic scope of senior user rights in a registered trademark looks like Swiss cheese. It stretches through the whole United States with holes cut out where others acquired common law rights prior to the registration. Unquote. Here, the district court's order gave Sands and IVCA, the whole cheese.

[00:15:07] Speaker 03:
No, it didn't. He just denied an injunction. See, he didn't make a ruling that they were entitled to use it in all these places. The district court simply denied your motion for preliminary injunction. You may well be entitled to an injunction. I'm not sure that they dispute that. I want to ask them that. But don't you have to go back to the district court and say, okay, judge, maybe you didn't understand the first time.

[00:15:29] Speaker 02:
Very well. So you've had a wonderful opportunity to have an engagement with my colleague, And now we're going to hear from Mr. Frazier.

[00:15:38] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor. And I suppose may I have any time for rebuttal?

[00:15:45] Speaker 00:
We'll see.

[00:15:47] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Judge Smith. I appreciate it.

[00:15:58] Speaker 02:
Mr. Frazier.

[00:15:59] Speaker 01:
Good morning, Your Honors. May it please the Court. My name is Eric Frazier on behalf of the Appalachians.

[00:16:06] Speaker 01:
MFIB is not entitled to an injunction in areas where IPCA is not using. This is not a case where they came in and said, IPCA has seniority in these five states, but now all of a sudden they're using in Indiana, and IPCA has no rights in Indiana, so we need an injunction.

[00:16:25] Speaker 01:
What happened in this case is they came ... Well, why not?

[00:16:29] Speaker 03:
You are using the mark. You don't claim senior rights in Indiana.

[00:16:35] Speaker 03:
Why shouldn't a judge give them an injunction against your use of the mark in places outside the geographic scope of your prior use? I don't know whether that means we should reverse or just say to them they're perfectly free to make that argument to the judge because the case is still pending in the district court. But you don't claim that you're entitled to use it in areas other than prior use, do you?

[00:16:59] Speaker 01:
We don't claim that we're entitled to use it in areas where we haven't shown continuous use. Okay. That's right.

[00:17:04] Speaker 03:
How can I tell from this record what areas that you've shown continuous use in?

[00:17:09] Speaker 01:
Well, first of all, can I answer the first question that you asked, Judge Horowitz? Of course.

[00:17:16] Speaker 01:
A registered user is not entitled to an injunction in the rest of the country if there's no infringement. Because to get an injunction, you have to show that there is infringement. If we're not infringing in the rest of the country, then they're not entitled to an injunction in the rest of the country.

[00:17:30] Speaker 03:
And that's my assumption, too, but your friend says, well, no, we're the registered holder and they're using it in some places. We fear they'll use it elsewhere, and so we'd like an injunction. My difficulty is you really don't contest that you can't use it in any place except that area of prior use. That's right. Okay, so what are we fighting about here?

[00:17:52] Speaker 01:
We're fighting, I think, about the posture of the case and whether they're entitled to a preliminary injunction before trial on the We agree that at trial on the merits, the district judge may very well need to make specific detailed geographic findings and get the map out and figure out where everyone's priority is. But we're fighting about whether the district court had to do that here on a preliminary injunction. And it didn't need to do that. I think the way that the case was teed up illustrates that. The arguments that were made for the preliminary injunction were principally based around a theory of abandonment.

[00:18:28] Speaker 01:
which is an all-or-nothing, winner-take-all theory. It's different than continuous use. It sounds similar, but it's different. So MFIB came into court and said, IBCA has no rights. But they don't seem to be contesting the non-abandonment finding. But that explains why, if you go back and look at this record, there's not a thick record on where everyone was using and exactly what time. The district court set the preliminary injunction hearing for two and a half hours. Each side agreed ahead of time that they would have 45 minutes per side to put on evidence.

[00:19:00] Speaker 01:
And so the evidence the district court received was principally focused on abandonment, which is why you're not focused on geography. You're focused on, you know, putting all the dates in a row. That's what the district court was asked to decide. The district court rejected that theory and said, if that's your theory for why you get an injunction, you lose no injunction. It may very well be that at trial on the merits, the district court will need to make those specific detailed geographic findings. But it wasn't required to do so in this posture in a preliminary injunction where the primary dispute between the parties was an abandonment issue that isn't tied to geographic scope.

[00:19:36] Speaker 03:
Whose burden was it to put on evidence of the geographic scope of prior use? Who was it? Whose burden? Is it yours? In other words, it strikes me that prior use is a defense. Yes. And that part of your burden should be to show where you

[00:19:53] Speaker 01:
Used it. So we have the burden ultimately at a trial on the merits under 1115B5. At the preliminary injunction, the district court is basically being asked to make a prediction. Will we be able to show that after a trial on the merits? So I don't dispute we have the burden to put on the evidence of geographic use, but MFIB has the burden that they need an injunction now. They need an injunction before trial on the merits. And so they could have satisfied that burden perhaps by saying, well, IBCA is using the mark in Indiana.

[00:20:23] Speaker 01:
We have rights in Indiana. They don't have rights in Indiana. We need an injunction for Indiana. That's not what they did. They came in and said IBCA has no rights anywhere because they abandoned the mark. And they're saying MFIB is entitled to an injunction because IBCA is the junior user everywhere because of a theory of abandonment. Once the district judge rejected that argument, it could deny the injunction because the only injunction MFIB asked for is a nationwide injunction, and it's not entitled to that.

[00:20:52] Speaker 03:
Mr. That is the one they submitted, but when I read their briefing below, in their reply briefing on the motion for preliminary injunction, at least in a footnote, they say, at the very least, we should be able to get an injunction as to those areas in which prior use was not shown.

[00:21:10] Speaker 01:
Mr. That's right. And so maybe even if this doesn't fit within, you know, the strict waiver definition, it's not an abuse of discretion. for the district judge to deny the injunction that they asked for in the proposed order, the findings of fact, conclusions of law, none of that has anything about a narrow injunction to only the regions where IBCA is currently using and MFIB has senior rights.

[00:21:37] Speaker 03:
Can I ask you to address something that I may have prevented your friend from addressing by asking too many questions, which is that he really wants us to rule that, continuous prior use in these various areas wasn't shown.

[00:21:54] Speaker 03:
So how do we review the judge's finding that it was, and why was the judge correct in your view?

[00:22:00] Speaker 01:
So you review, first of all, the ultimate review of whether the judge correctly denied the preliminary injunction as abuse of discretion. Obviously the facts that lead to the continuous use finding are reviewed for clear error. It means if there is any circumstance in which that ruling is correct, you should affirm Here, there's lots of evidence of continuous use in states around the country.

[00:22:23] Speaker 01:
And again, because the district judge was asked to grant a universal injunction, I think the question for this court was, did the district judge abuse his discretion in denying that universal nationwide injunction? The answer is no, because the district judge was making a prediction that we would be able to show continuous use. And I think that's particularly true, again, when the The core dispute between the parties, and I understand it was raised in a footnote. I don't dispute that, and we said so in our answering brief.

[00:22:54] Speaker 01:
But the core dispute between the parties was abandonment. So the question for the court is, for this court, is when the district judge is asked to issue a nationwide injunction on a theory of abandonment and then rejects that theory of abandonment, did he abuse his discretion in not making these detailed geographic findings? The answer is no, and there's no case anywhere that says that a district judge is required to act as a cartographer and lay out the complete set of where the Swiss cheese holes are around the country at a preliminary injunction when that wasn't the key dispute between the parties.

[00:23:29] Speaker 03:
Do you dispute their ability to go back to the judge now and seek such an injunction?

[00:23:35] Speaker 01:
They can try.

[00:23:36] Speaker 03:
I'll say, Your Honor, if they... Yeah, I mean, that's all I really need to know.

[00:23:41] Speaker 01:
No, I understand.

[00:23:42] Speaker 03:
Whether you think they'll win or lose. Right.

[00:23:44] Speaker 03:
It strikes me the case is still pending in the district court.

[00:23:47] Speaker 01:
The case is still pending.

[00:23:48] Speaker 03:
Indeed, there's no stay pending appeal, is there?

[00:23:49] Speaker 01:
There is not a stay pending appeal.

[00:23:51] Speaker 03:
So nothing prevents anybody from going back and seeking a more narrow injunction?

[00:23:55] Speaker 01:
That's correct, Your Honor. So MFIB can try to do that. If they can show there is a particular region where they have senior rights and they are facing irreparable harm and they can satisfy the bounds of hardships and all the rest, they can try to get that injunction.

[00:24:11] Speaker 01:
This isn't obviously before you, but we've amended our complaint to add a claim for a cancellation of the petition. So the district judge, you know, we would now be raising different defenses than we did in the prior proceedings that are before you right now. But that's the key point is that we don't know how the case will play out. And when the time comes for the district court to make those detailed geographic findings, if that's what he's ultimately required to do, He'll have to set this for a hearing where each side gets more than 45 minutes to put on evidence.

[00:24:42] Speaker 01:
He set this for a two and a half hour hearing, which is enough. That's perfectly fine. We're not saying that there was anything wrong with that. That's enough time to evaluate an abandonment argument. That's not enough time to lay out the entire country and figure out where everyone has rights and figure out the whole map of Swiss cheese. And that's also not enough.

[00:25:05] Speaker 01:
I'm sorry. Stepping away from the time aspect, again, a registered user isn't entitled to an injunction in the rest of the country if there's no irreparable harm, if there's no infringement. Trademark law is very strange in the sense that you have lots of little islands of seniority where people have seniority over a registered mark.

[00:25:30] Speaker 01:
The senior user, I'm sorry, the registered user, is not entitled to an injunction around the rest of the country if the senior user is just doing his thing in his little region of seniority and is not stepping outside that zone. The registered user doesn't get to come into court and get an injunction in the rest of the country where there's no infringement.

[00:25:57] Speaker 01:
Judge Horwitz, you asked, whether 1115B-5 is the right fit. Do you still want an answer to that question?

[00:26:02] Speaker 03:
Well, I think as your friend says, it doesn't matter. But on its face, it only seems to apply to somebody who has junior rights but was unaware of senior rights, and that's not this case.

[00:26:16] Speaker 01:
So first of all, I agree that it doesn't matter. It is kind of a strange fit, but I think it does apply. The key language that I think you're focusing on is – whether we adopted the mark without knowledge of the registrant's prior use. I think that's what you're getting at. We did adopt our mark without knowledge of the registrant's prior use because there was no prior use.

[00:26:41] Speaker 03:
That's only because you're claiming that the registrant didn't use it prior to your use. Right. I don't think that's what it is. At least on its face, this statute seems to be about a different circumstance. But I'm not sure, as your friend says, that it matters. The test is the same.

[00:26:55] Speaker 01:
The test is the same, and I think that's kind of – What's going on here is that before the statute was codified, there was a body of common law, and once the statute was codified, all attention sort of shifted to that statute, and so the common law kind of dried up. But it is the same test. I don't think anybody's disputing that. And there are cases like the Allard v. Advanced Programming case from the Sixth Circuit that apply the statute in this context where the unregistered user is the senior user.

[00:27:30] Speaker 01:
I think the core principle here, again, is that the district court wasn't required to make detailed geographic findings on a preliminary razor-thin record to deny the nationwide injunction that MFIB asked for. So we ask that you affirm. Thank you. Very well.

[00:27:42] Speaker 02:
So, counsel, we're going to give you the famous two-minute alligator pit deal. If you go past two minutes, down you go.

[00:27:53] Speaker 00:
I'm not sure if I want to get up or not.

[00:27:57] Speaker 02:
Okay, you decide.

[00:28:01] Speaker 00:
Okay. Thank you very much, Your Honors.

[00:28:05] Speaker 00:
First, I want to direct the Court's attention to ER 1188 and 1189, specifically 1188, line 27, to 1189-4. That is my friend on the other side's opposition to our request for a preliminary injunction, and that has a quotation of the statute, 1115B-5, and what Your Honors will find is that at the end of that quotation, my friends on the other side omitted, provided, however, that this defense or defect shall apply only for the area in which such continuous prior use is proved.

[00:28:46] Speaker 00:
That omission is where the district court started losing its way, I would say. Second, with respect to nationwide injunctions, assume, Your Honors, that there's a national conference of sophisticated purchasers in the affordable housing renovation market who are all meeting in Chicago in November. And they are all going to decide who they are going to hire to provide services, general contracting services, in this market.

[00:29:16] Speaker 00:
And both of us are there. And both of us are there under the dominant ICON national mark when we've already shown that there's actual confusion. I do believe that we are entitled to a nationwide injunction. except for the areas in which senior use, or Your Honor called it juniors, but I'll just call it prior continuous use, was not proved. And I do not think we have to fly around the country and go from place to place like whack-a-mole whenever they decide to go into Maine or Hawaii or Alaska or Washington State and so on.

[00:29:53] Speaker 00:
I don't think that's how it works. I understand that Your Honor's With respect to you, I don't want to go into the alligator hole. Thank you very much, Your Honors. I appreciate your time today.

[00:30:04] Speaker 02:
Very well. Thanks to both counsel. We appreciate your argument. The case MFIBLLC versus IBCA is submitted. The court will take a 10-minute recess and then return to hear the case of Jurigai versus Packhart et al. So we're taking a 10-minute recess.

[00:30:24] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:30:38] Speaker 00:
STANDS IN