With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of the Defendants’ Non-Merchandise Revenues, nor any portion of their revenues from trading cards, video games, or game programs, was attributable to the Defendants’ selection and use of the infringing Flying B rather than some other logo. Having met their initial burden, the Defendants successfully shifted the onus onto Bouchat to come forward and demonstrate that such an issue does, in fact, exist. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 475 U.S. at 586-87, 106 S.Ct. 1348. A party opposing a properly supported motion for summary judgment “may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of [his] pleadings,” but rather must “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); see Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 475 U.S. at 586-87, 106 S.Ct. 1348 (<HOLDING>); see also Mackie, 296 F.3d at 911 (holding

A: holding that when there are no genuine issues of material fact summary judgment is appropriate
B: holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if there is a genuine dispute about a material fact
C: holding that the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact
D: holding that once motion for summary judgment is properly made and supported opposing party has burden of showing by means of affidavits or other verified evidence that there exists genuine dispute of material fact
D.