With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". mark on the eBay website and the purchase of the TIFFANY Marks in generating sponsored links — -and are unsuccessful for the same reasons. First, eBay’s use of the term “Tiffany” in advertising is protected, nominative fair use. Second, to the extent that Tiffany argues that eBay’s advertising is impliedly false, that argument rests on Tiffany’s assertion that eBay knew that jewelry sold on its website was counterfeit. While eBay certainly had generalized knowledge that Tiffany products sold on eBay were often counterfeit, Tiffany has not proven that eBay had specific knowledge as to the illicit nature of individual listings. Finally, to the extent that the advertising was false, the falsity was the responsibility of third party sellers, not eBay. See Merck & Co., 425 F.Supp.2d at 415 (<HOLDING>). In short, Tiffany failed to establish that

A: holding that where neither link to defendants website nor surrounding text mentions plaintiff or plaintiffs trademark there is no trademark infringement in purchasing sponsored link
B: holding that there is nothing improper with defendants purchase of sponsored links when defendants actually sell plaintiffs products  on their website
C: holding that the commercial use requirement is not satisfied where defendants site itself had no outside links
D: holding that use of plaintiffs trade name as metatag in defendants website was a permissible fair use as metatag simply described defendants and the content of their website
B.