With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to trademark owner and burden to infringer when determining whether product recall is appropriate remedy). Kidz-Med does not dispute the district court’s finding that a recall would require it to contact five retailers and would cost $95,000 to complete. See Tecnimed SRL v. Kidz-Med, Inc., 763 F.Supp.2d at 416. It complains that the district court did not weigh these facts against Kidz-Med’s precarious financial condition. In fact, the record shows that the district court specifically concluded that Kidz-Med should bear the costs despite its imminent insolvency because it had assumed the risk of a recall by intentionally keeping its non-contact thermometers on the market during this litigation’s pendency. See id.-, see also Perfect Fit Indus., Inc. v. Acme Quilting Co., 646 F.2d at 807 (<HOLDING>). 4. Conclusion We have considered Kidz-Med’s

A: holding that the defendants reference to the plaintiffs trademark in the metatags of the defendants web page was a violation of trademark law
B: holding that defendants intentional acts to infringe plaintiffs trademark supported district courts recall order
C: holding there is no continuing duty to repair or recall
D: holding that the continued use of licensed trademark after termination of franchise agreement constituted trademark infringement and breach of contract
B.