With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Brenner’s ideas, concepts, and innovations are not a part of her protectable trade dress. The copying that is relevant here relates only to the total “look and feel” of the two gyms, and efforts to confuse consumers as to source. But, as discussed, the “look and feel” of the Pure Power and Warrior Fitness facilities are not substantially similar. And, there is no evidence that Defendants intended to mislead customers as to the identity of Warrior Fitness. This is not a case where Defendants profited by selling “knock-off’ copies of Plaintiffs’ products or services, see, e.g., Samara Bros., 529 U.S. at 205, 120 S.Ct. at 1339, and the names of the two businesses are not confusingly similar. See, e.g., Starbucks Corp. v. Wolfe’s Borough Coffee, Inc., 588 F.3d 97, 118 (2d Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>); see also W.W.W. Pharm. Co. v. Gillette Co.,

A: holding that the court of appeals correctly stated the public policy exception but erroneously concluded that the exception did not apply
B: holding that the district court reasonably concluded that black bear did not intend to mislead the public that the charbucks coffees were starbucks products
C: holding that the white defendants association with a black defendant was not sufficient to give them standing to join in the black defendants batson challenge
D: recognizing that the district court did not reach the merits
B.