With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Majestic has not shown the links of ownership that would be required, nor has it shown Maserati I authorized MAI to send the letters. Maserati II and MNA argue that it is undisputed that Majestic never bought anything from Maserati I, and therefore Majestic’s “acquiescence theory” fails. They note that there were business reasons for MAI and Majestic to maintain a relationship after Maserati I left North America — namely, so that MAI could continue selling parts to Majestic, which needed the parts to continue its Maserati repair business. Finally, Maserati II and MNA contend that Maserati I should not be penalized for failing to enforce its trademark in the United States when it was absent from the market. See, e.g., Coco Rico, Inc. v. Fuertes Pasarell, 738 F.Supp. 613 (D.P.R.1990) (<HOLDING>). Majestic’s contention that Maserati I

A: holding manufacturers trademark claim was not barred by laches when defendants use of mark had been limited to northeastern united states and did not extend to manufacturers market in puerto rico
B: holding that proof of unauthorized use of an original trademark by one whose license to use the trademark had been terminated is sufficient to establish the likelihood of confusion prong
C: holding limited use of a mark did not constitute prior use in commerce sufficient to establish rights in the mark
D: holding united states government is immune from rico suit
A.