With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". law creates the cause of action asserted.” See id. (noting that cases asserting federal causes of action account for “the vast bulk of suits that arise under federal law.” (citing Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust of S. Cal, 463 U.S. 1, 9, 103 S.Ct. 2841, 77 L.Ed.2d 420 (1983))). This commonly treaded path to federal question jurisdiction is unavailing because Plaintiffs have not asserted any federal causes of action. This is not a patent invalidity or infringement suit, see 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(a), 282, or a trademark infringement suit, see 35 U.S.C. § 114. And the facts as alleged are not the kind that would typically lead to such a dispute. See, e.g., Dall. Cowboys Football Club, Ltd. v. America’s Team Props., Inc., 616 F.Supp.2d 622, 646 (N.D.Tex.2009) (<HOLDING>). This is a dispute over ownership rights to

A: holding in trademark infringement suit that dallas cowboys americas team mark was protectable and that defendants were enjoined from using producing or promoting a similar mark
B: holding that infringement laws simply do not apply to a nontrademark use of a mark
C: holding that the essential wrong of trademark infringement the appropriation of the good will of anothers established mark may be effectively accomplished by advertising matter associating that others distinguishing mark with the product of defendant
D: holding that there is nothing improper about the use of a trademark to communicate that goods bearing that mark were actually sold on defendants website
A.