JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU, SENATOR. AS YOU SAY, I HAVE HANDLED A LOT OF CASES IN MY TIME, NEARLY A DECADE ON THE BENCH. YOU LEARN SOME THINGS IN ALMOST EVERY CASE IN SOME RESPECT. IF YOU ARE DOING YOUR JOB RIGHT AND YOU ARE LOOKING INTO ALL OF THE ISSUES. I THINK -- I MENTIONED ONE FROM A FEW YEARS INTO MY SERVICE AS A TRIAL JUDGE. I HANDLED A CASE YAKAI VS NAPPER. IT INVOLVED TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT. YOU WOULD THINK TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT CHARGES ARE DRY AND TECHNICAL. WHAT I LEARNED FROM THIS CASE IS EVEN AREAS OF THE LAW THAT YOU MIGHT THINK APPLY ONLY TO BUSINESSES IMPACT REAL PEOPLE AT TIMES. THIS CASE INVOLVED A SMALL COMMUNITY, A CULTURAL COMMUNITY, OF PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN VEGAN LIFESTYLE. THEY CALL THEMSELVES THE AFRICAN HEBREW ISRAELITES, BUT IT IS A CULTURAL COMMUNITY AROUND HEALTHY LIVING. THEY HAVE CREATED A RESTAURANT, SERIES OF RESTAURANTS IN THE WASHINGTON, D.C. AREA WITH MENUS INVOLVING REALLY, I'M TOLD, TERRIFIC VEGAN FOODS. IN THIS COMMUNITY THERE WAS A MEMBER WHO WAS THE ONE WHO CREATED THE RECIPES AND WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RESTAURANT. THE WHOLE COMMUNITY HAD OTHER ASPECTS TO IT. SHE ENDED UP FALLING OUT WITH THE COMMUNITY AND THE DISPUTE INVOLVED HIS ACTIONS ESSENTIALLY TAKING OVER THE RESTAURANT AND REOPENING IT BY HIMSELF USING THE SAME NAME. THE RESTAURANT WAS CALLED EVERLASTING LIFE, WHICH WAS AN IMPORTANT PHRASE FOR THIS COMMUNITY. HE ESSENTIALLY EJECTED THE OTHER MEMBERS BECAUSE HE WAS THE LEASE HOLDER OR HAD SIGNED THE LEASE ON BEHALF OF THE COMMUNITY. HE KICKED THEM OUT FOR A DAY AND THEN REOPENED THE RESTAURANT USING THE SAME NAME. THE QUESTION WAS UNDER THE STATUTE FOR TRADEMARK VIOLATIONS WHETHER THERE IS A POTENTIAL FOR CONFUSION AND THAT SORT OF CIRCUMSTANCE. ORDINARILY -- I SEE SENATOR COWAN'S NODDING. ORDINARILY WHEN YOU HAVE A TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT BUSINESSES WITH SIMILAR PRODUCTS. THE QUESTION IS, ARE THEY SIMILAR ENOUGH TO CAUSE CONFUSION. THE IDEA OF THE LAW IS THAT PEOPLE SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE PRODUCTS THAT ARE IDENTIFIED WITH THEM AND YOU SHOULDN'T BE CONFUSED. IN THIS CASE WE HAD A BENCH TRIAL ABOUT IT, BUT IT WAS PRETTY CLEAR. I WAS THE FACT FINDER AS THE JUDGE. IT WAS PRETTY CLEAR AND YOU OPEN THE SAME BUSINESS WITH THE SAME NAME USING THE SAME RECIPES AND FOOD THAT YOU HAVE CREATED THIS KIND OF PROBLEM THAT IS A TRADEMARK VIOLATION. WHAT WAS SO INTERESTING TO ME IN ADDITION TO THE FACT THAT I GOT TO BE THAT FACT FOR A BENCH TRIAL IS THAT WE HAD WITNESSES COME IN WHO TESTIFIED ABOUT THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES. THIS WAS A VERY SMALL COMMUNITY, THEY ALL KNEW EACH OTHER, AND THE TESTIMONY ABOUT WHAT IT MEANT TO THEM TO HAVE ONE OF THEIR MEMBERS EJECTED IN THIS WAY AND HAVE HIM TURN ON THEM WAS VERY MOVING IN THE COURTROOM. EVEN THOUGH WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THIS ARCANE AREA OF THE LAW, IT WAS REAL CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WAS HAPPENING. ...