With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". another’s trademark have been established (typically including the requirement that the name acquired a “secondary meaning” as a result of its association with the relevant products, see Circuit City Stores, 165 F.3d at 1054), and (2) that the scope of the injunction accounts for the reality that the mark relates to the offending party’s own last name. See, e.g., Joseph Scott, 764 F.2d at 65 n. 2, 69 (stating, in modifying the district court’s preliminary injunction, that an individual “should be permitted to use his name to describe his past accomplishments and expertise,” but that “he must make perfectly clear that his firm is no longer associated with, and is not a successor to,” a competing corporation); Taylor Wine Co. v. Bully Hill Vineyards, Inc., 569 F.2d 731, 736 (2d Cir.1978) (<HOLDING>); Berghoff Restaurant Co. v. Lewis W. Berghoff

A: holding that a corporation could be served by delivering a copy of the subpoena to an officer or managing or general agent of the corporation and that the agent could be an individual a partnership or another corporation
B: holding that an individual may use his signature on certain labels or advertisements if he chooses but only with appropriate disclaimer that he is not connected with or a successor to a competing corporation
C: holding that an employee is guilty of misconduct connected with his work when he deliberately violates a company rule reasonably designed to protect the legitimate business interests of his employer or when his acts or omissions are of such a nature or so recurrent as to manifest a willful disregard of those interests and the duties and obligations he owes his employer
D: holding jurisdiction over an individual may not usually be predicated on jurisdiction over a corporation unless the corporation is the alter ego of the individual or when the individual perpetrates a fraud
B.