With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". infringement. (Id. ¶ 95.) The resolution of Defendant Debtors’ trademark infringement claim will require significant consideration of non-Title 11 federal law, satisfying § 157(d). If left with the bankruptcy court, the complaint’s trademark infringement claim will require that court to determine the validity and scope of alleged marks under the Lanham Act. (Doc. 13 at 4.) Resolution of this'claim will thus require significant consideration, interpretation, and application of the Lan-ham Act. See In re Petition of Wuthrich, 337 B.R. 262, 268 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2006) (observing, in dicta, that a Lanham Act claim and dispute over trademark’s abandonment “would likely be subject to mandatory withdraw of the reference” under § 157(d)); In re McCrory Corp., 160 B.R. 502, 505 (S.D.N.Y.1993) (<HOLDING>); Burger King Corp. v. B-K of Kansas, Inc., 64

A: recognizing that willful blindness is equivalent to actual knowledge under the lanham act
B: holding that  157d required withdrawing reference where bankruptcy court faced lanham act claim partly involving the issue of secondary meaning because interpreting lanham act provisions to a given set of facts is generally neither simple nor straightforward
C: holding that the statute of limitations for all of plaintiffs eleven causes of action including those brought under lanham act  43a 15 usc  1125a and lanham act  43c 15 usc  1125c is four years
D: holding that section 43a of the lanham act protects trade dress
B.