With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". for summary judgment on Plaintiffs fifth claim for relief is granted. 2. Dilution In 1996, Congress amended § 43 of the Lanham Act to provide a remedy for dilution of a famous mark. See 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c). Under this section, the owner of a famous mark may obtain injunctive relief against another person’s commercial use in commerce of a mark or trade name. See id. § 1125(c)(1). The court has already determined that Wyatt’s use of the Plaintiffs marks was not “commercial” for purposes of maintaining a trademark infringement claim. Therefore, Plaintiff has not carried its burden to show that Wyatt’s use was commercial under the Lanham Act for a dilution claim either. See 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(4); see Huthwaite, Inc. v. Sunrise Assisted Living, Inc., 261 F.Supp.2d 502, 517 (E.D.Va.2003) (<HOLDING>). Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on

A: holding that the commercial use requirement of section 1125c is virtually synonymous with the in connection with the sale offering for sale distribution or advertising of goods and services requirement of the lanham act
B: holding breach of best execution duty is a material misrepresentation in connection with the purchase or sale of the securities
C: holding lanham act applies only to tangible goods offered for sale not the author of any idea concept or communication
D: holding in the analogous context of choiceoflaw in relation to the sale of personal property that compensation for arranging the sale is assessed apart from underlying sale
A.