With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in the opinion of the court, this asserted injury does not arise out of a violation of the Lanham Act. Instead, it seems to stem from the defendants’ threat to sue the plaintiffs under the Lanham Act for trademark infringement if they attempt to enter the U.S. market with their SMIRNOV vodka products. However, the court doubts that the threat to sue another party under the Lanham Act can give rise to a violation of that same Act. Instead, in the opinion of the court, this asserted anti-competitive harm is better recognized, if at all, under other statutes. See Coca-Cola Co. v. Overland, Inc., 692 F.2d 1250, 1257-58 (9th Cir.1982); Letica Corp. v. Sweetheart Cup Co., 790 F.Supp. 702, 704-07 (E.D.Mich.1992); cf. Car-Freshner Corp. v. Auto Aid Mfg. Corp., 438 F.Supp. 82, 87 (N.D.N.Y.1977) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added). For these reasons, the court

A: recognizing that the test to determine whether a trademark is being used to confer a monopoly in a certain product is properly conducted under section 2 of the sherman act 15 usc  2 which requires a showing that the defendants actions have led to or resulted in a dangerous probability that it will gain a monopoly over the product in issue
B: holding that defendants incorporation of plaintiffs computer product into its own cdrom product could constitute claim under 15 usc  1125a
C: recognizing strict product liability actions
D: holding that a cause of action on the theory of strict liability may be properly pled by alleging 1 the manufacturers relationship to the product in question 2 the unreasonably dangerous condition of the product and 3 the existence of a proximate causal connection between the condition of the product and the plaintiffs injury
A.