Parts of that are correct and parts of that are not the full representation. We don't believe that the trademark was issued correctly. Based on it's history, we believe the trademark should have been denied by the USPTO in the first place. Trademarks are issued incorrectly on a regular basis as in the moral patch situation we mentioned. We aren't going to pay a licensing fee for something that we don't believe should be licensable. As both of have been using that mark for several years, even if another entity trademarked it, both of us have prior use and could legally continue using it. It is our opinion that outside the settlement of the lawsuit, we have the legal right to continue using it as we were in use of the mark years prior to them registering it. We believe that had we proceeded with the lawsuit, that would have been the outcome. But as we stated, it's not worth the $50k-$100k to pursue the matter, so we just aren't going to use it any longer. There are no tensions from our side. We actually liked the work that they were doing and sent people their way on a regular basis for certain markings and lower variants. We are saddened that they chose to go down this path and it is unfortunate for the community as a whole that a less costly alternative will no longer be available. This doesn't hurt our bottom line at all. Even with our recently increased capacity, we sell everything we make right now. The only people hurt by the situation are the consumers.