With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". explicitly features the allegedly infringing rugs. Id. at ¶ 10. It also apparently provides extensive assistance to a consumer in viewing available rugs for sale, obtaining information about their fiber content and sizes, and receiving recommendations. Id. at ¶ 8. Other internet retailers that carry Dynamic rugs state that Dynamic will ship directly to the consumer. Id. at ¶ 11-14. Dynamic also advertises in Home Furnishing News magazine, which is circulated in Maine. Ex. to Decl. of Angela Adams (Docket Item 17, Attachment 2). I conclude that Dynamic is marketing the allegedly infringing designs in Maine and that if the infringing rugs arrive in Maine, their arrival is not merely the random or fortuitous actions of a third party. See Helicopteros, 466 U.S. at 416-417, 104 S.Ct. 1868 (<HOLDING>). Dynamic’s marketing of infringing rugs has a

A: holding that unilateral activity of a third party is not an appropriate consideration in determining what contacts are sufficient for personal jurisdiction purposes
B: holding that personal jurisdiction over defendant car manufacturer was inappropriate when defendants only contacts with the forum resulted from plaintiffs unilateral activity of driving defendants product into another state
C: holding that personal jurisdiction is proper if party has sufficient minimum contacts
D: holding that personal jurisdiction over a party is proper if the party has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum
A.