With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 95% of the products Blanke USA sells are Blanke Germany products, R. 230-7 at 25:2-3. Thus, the overwhelming inference is the products at the show were in fact Blanke Germany products. Accordingly, despite the fact that the booth at the trade show may have been for “Blanke Corporation” — i.e., Blanke USA-R. 230-4 at 53, the booth might as well have been for Blanke Germany and its products. Cf. SDS Korea Co. v. SDS USA, Inc., 732 F.Supp.2d 1062, 1079-80 (S.D.Cal.2010) (explaining that the minimum contacts prong was not satisf being marketed, promoted, and sold in Illinois because its CEO had a personal opportunity to observe the activity and further help with its facilitation. Cf. Alphagen Biotech v. Langoost Enters., LLC, No. 2:13-CV-15 TS, 2013 WL 2389792, at *7 (D.Utah May 30, 2013) (<HOLDING>). At least one other district court has found

A: holding that the defendant lacked sufficient contacts with the forum state because there was no evidence the defendant knew where the product would be sold
B: holding that the effects of a tortious act cannot subject a defendant to personal jurisdiction in a forum where no other contacts exist
C: holding that no fiduciary duty existed between the plaintiff and defendant because there was no evidence that the parties agreed that defendant would be acting primarily for the benefit of the plaintiffs
D: holding that phone and facsimile communications to the forum purchase orders and payments sent to the forum a choice of law clause within the contract regarding the forum state and delivery of the product within the forum state were not enough to satisfy minimum contacts
A.