With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and one side wins. This is not a ground for disqualification. 63 . R & R at 568. 64 . See id. at 591-98. 65 . Id. at 598. 66 . See id. at 599-600. 67 . See id. at 600. See also Louis Vuitton, 340 F.Supp.2d at 442-45, 449-51. 68 . R & R at 602. See also Louis Vuitton, 340 F.Supp.2d at 444. 69 . R& Rat 603. 70 .See id. at 603-04. 71 . See id. at 604 (“Indeed, the question [of whether defendant required permission or a license from plaintiff] asked the respondents the very question that this litigation seeks to answer.”). 72 . Id. 73 . See id. at 609-11. 74 . Id. at 612. 75 . Louis Vuitton, 340 F.Supp.2d at 451 n. 196. See also R & R at 612-13. 76 . R& Rat 639. 77 . Id. at 641. 78 . See id. at 643-44. See also Price v. Fox Entm’t Group, Inc., et al., 499 F.Supp.2d 382, 389 (S.D.N.Y.2007) (<HOLDING>). 79 . R& Rat 643. 80 . See id. at 680 n. 355.

A: holding expert testimony on probative similarities between works is unnecessary where the works are not highly technical and the jury is capable of recognizing and understanding the similarities between the works without the help of an expert
B: holding expert testimony was not required where jury is capable of determining existence of duty
C: recognizing auditory similarities between two marks at summary judgment where the plaintiff had linguistic expert evidence that the marks were pronounced similarly
D: holding that the district courts decision to discount expert testimony was appropriate where the expert deemphasized dissimilarities between the works and compared scenes a faire
A.