With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in cases both before and after ITC, that “some element of bad faith” is “central” to the notion of unfair competition by misappropriation under New York law. Saratoga Vichy Spring Co., Inc. v. Lehman, 625 F.2d 1037, 1044 (2d Cir.1980); see also, e.g., Camelot Assocs. Corp. v. Camelot Design & Dev. LLC, 298 A.D.2d 799, 800, 750 N.Y.S.2d 155, 156 (3d Dep’t 2002) (stating that “a cause of action in unfair competition requires the plaintiff to prove some element of bad faith” (internal quotation marks omitted)); ESPN, Inc. v. Quiksilver, Inc., 586 F.Supp.2d 219, 230 (S.D.N.Y.2008) (stating that “some element of bad faith” is central to misappropriation) (internal quotation marks omitted); Out of Box Promotions, LLC v. Koschitzki, 55 A.D.3d 575, 578, 866 N.Y.S.2d 677, 681 (2d Dep’t 2008) (<HOLDING>). In sum, ITC did not constitute an intervening

A: holding that alleged bad faith misappropriation of a commercial advantage belonging to another stated claim for unfair competition internal quotation marks omitted
B: holding that a bad faith claim is a tort
C: holding that due process is violated if evidence of prior bad acts goes only to character and there are no permissible inferences the jury may draw from it internal quotation marks omitted
D: holding that compliance with rule 3 is both a mandatory and jurisdictional prerequisite to appeal internal quotation marks omitted
A.