With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". a reverse palming off claim under the Lanham Act is designed to prevent against unfair competition, which looks at the marketing, not the manufacturing of a product. See Donald Frederick Evans & Assoc., Inc. v. Continental Homes, Inc., 785 F.2d 897, 913 (11th Cir.1986) (citing B.H. Bunn Co. v. AAA Replacement Parts Co., 451 F.2d 1254, 1263 (5th Cir.1971)); Smith v. Montoro, 648 F.2d 602, 604 (9th Cir.1981). b. Lanham Act Differs From Trade Secret Law Del Monte’s argument regarding the presence of MD-2 in the public domain confuses the scope of the Lanham Act with that of trade secret protection, which is a product of state law. Articles in the public domain usually are not protected by trade secret law, see Roboserve, Ltd. v. Tom’s Foods, Inc., 940 F.2d 1441, 1454-55 (11th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>), but, as discussed in the following

A: holding that printouts from a breath test machine are not hearsay but rather the mechanicallygenerated reports automatically created by the machine they do not constitute outofcourt statements by any person or the conclusion of a third party not before the court   internal citations omitted
B: holding that state trade secret law could not protect vending machine mechanism where machine was sold to third party
C: holding that disclosure of trade secret without protection of express confidentiality agreement was not fatal to trade secret protection where disclosure occurred during sale negotiation
D: holding that a machine that allegedly eliminated lumps from womens breasts was governed by the ffdca even though the fda did not require the use of such a machine
B.