With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the doctrine of nominative fair use operates to deprive Plaintiffs of their trademark claims. e. Dilution and contributory infringement. The first sale and nominative fair use doctrines bar Plaintiffs’ dilution and contributory trademark infringement claims. For the dilution claims, the bar is straightforward. See 15 U.S.C. 1125(c) (providing that nominative fair use is not actionable as dilution by blurring or tarnishment). And since Plaintiffs have not successfully alleged any predicate acts of trademark infringement by SBR users, SBR may not be liable for contributory infringement. See Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa International Service Association, 494 F.3d 788, 807 (9th Cir.2007) (quoting Inwood Labs., Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 855, 102 S.Ct. 2182, 72 L.Ed.2d 606 (1982)) (<HOLDING>). 4. State Law Claims against SBR Plaintiffs

A: holding that contributory trademark infringement requires some predicate act of infringement
B: holding that actual confusion though not required is the best evidence supporting trademark infringement
C: holding that the continued use of licensed trademark after termination of franchise agreement constituted trademark infringement and breach of contract
D: recognizing nominative fair use as an affirmative defense to trademark infringement
A.