With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and use the same corporate logo. Id. at 11-12. This fact shows that Siemens Germany exerts some control over Siemens Austria’s marketing policies, but is insufficient to show “pervasive” or “complete” control, or that the distinction between the companies is more formal than real. Plaintiffs also argue that Siemens Austria is a mere department of Siemens Germ .2d 544, 550 (S.D.N.Y.2001) (“In absence of direct evidence of control, J.L.B. relies on Ocwen’s webpage, which, according to J.L.B., treats Ocwen and Ocwen Bank as one. [T]he Court is not persuaded that failure to distinguish between and subsidiary on a webpage is sufficient to show that the parent controls the subsidiary’s marketing and operational policies.”); Bellomo v. Pennsylvania Life Co., 488 F.Supp. 744, 745 (S.D.N.Y.1980)(<HOLDING>). Finally, plaintiffs allege an “overlap in

A: holding that a parent does not subject itself to jurisdiction merely by portraying an affiliate as part of a unitary enterprise
B: holding that parent is liable for acts of subsidiary under agency theory only if parent dominates subsidiary parent of whollyowned subsidiary that had seats on board took part in financing and approved major policy decisions was not liable because parent did not have daytoday control
C: holding that the right to support is not subject to waiver by either parent
D: holding that personal jurisdiction is not required to make an outofstate parent a party to custody action where the state court has subject matter jurisdiction under the uniform child custody jurisdiction act
A.