With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". competitor) will reap the financial, reputation-related rewards associated with a desirable product. ... It is the source-distinguishing ability of a mark ... that permits it to serve these basic purposes. Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc., 514 U.S. 159, 163-64, 115 S.Ct. 1300, 131 L.Ed.2d 248 (1995) (citations omitted). Apparently, the present case marks the first time a circuit court has considered the issue of whether the presence of another’s trademark in the post-domain path of a URL violates trademark law. Several courts have considered the issue of whether the use of another’s trademark in one’s website domain name violates trademark law, and the answer is usually that such use is a violation. See, e.g., PACCAR, Inc. v. TeleScan Tech. LLC, 319 F.3d 243 (6th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast

A: recognizing that generic marks are not subject to trademark protection
B: holding that district court must separately analyze whether use of metatags alone without the inclusion of those marks in the domain names creates a likelihood of confusion
C: holding that defendants use of domain names such as peterbilttruckscom and kenworthnewtruckscom violated plaintiffs trademark rights in the marks peterbilt and kenworth
D: holding that the defendants use of the domain name moviebuffcom violated plaintiffs trademark rights in the mark moviebufp
C.