With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". marking the owner’s manual is insufficient where the product itself is capable of being marked, as is the case here. See Metro-logic Instruments, Inc. v. PSC, Inc., Civ. A. No. 99-4876(JBS), 2004 WL 2851955, *20, *21, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24949, *55, *60 (D.N.J. Dec. 13, 2004) (holdirig insufficient listing the patent numbers of its products in the related instruction manuals). Subtracting out the genuinely disputed DirecTV remotes shows that Plaintiff has failed to establish a genuine dispute concerning the fact that it failed to mark approximately 23% of the '067-covered remotes in 2006 and 22% of the '067-covered remotes in 2007. Those figures fail the “substantially all” requirement by a wide measure. See Hazeltine Corp. v. Radio Carp, of Am., 20 F.Supp. 668, 673 (S.D.N.Y.1937) (<HOLDING>). 7.24 The Date When Plaintiff Provided Actual

A: holding that a failure to mark 13 of products is certainly not adequate marking
B: holding at most the infringer bears some initial burden of plausibly identifying products subject to the marking requirement and granting summary judgment in favor of the alleged infringer where it submitted a declaration and attached exhibits identifying particular products
C: holding that a plaintiff must show that a defendant did not have an honest good faith belief in marking its products
D: holding that mark had not acquired secondary meaning even with advertisements costing 4400000 over five years because it did not lead consumers to associate plaintiffs mark with its products
A.