With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". even though the defendant’s products were at a trade show in the forum State, because the products were displayed at an unrelated distributor’s booth and there was no evidence that the defendant had any relationship or interaction with potential customers in the forum State at the trade show). This is not a situation in which Peter Blanke, CEO of both Blanke Germany and Blanke USA, R. 230-4 at 12-14, can be said to have adopted his “Blanke USA” affiliation and left his “Blanke Germany” affiliation behind. Peter Blanke was at the booth in Chicago, answering questions about Blanke Germany products, and ultimately promoting and endorsing the sale of Blanke Germany products while present in Illinois. Cf. Kingsmill v. Roundo AB, No. 12-3524, 2013 WL 3778351, at *8 (E.D.Pa. July 18, 2013) (<HOLDING>). Blanke Germany obviously knew its products

A: holding that supplier lists can be trade secrets under indianas uniform trade secrets act which uses the same definition of a trade secret as montana
B: holding that the burden of establishing the true existence of a trade secret and its value to the owner remains on the claimant who must submit evidence relating to the six factors that texas law considers for trade secret status
C: holding contact information of potential computer network services clients was not a trade secret because all businesses are now potential customers of computer network services and their contact information is publicly available
D: holding that the defendants regular attendance at trade shows for national and international markets and infrequent attendance at meetings for a customers nationwide network of local distributors did not satisfy the minimum contacts requirement because plaintiff has provided no evidence indicating how defendants attendance at these trade shows and meetings was related to the forum state
D.