With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". In B.H. Bunn Co. v. AAA Replacement Parts Co., 451 F.2d 1254 (5th Cir. 1971), the defendant manufactured machine parts by dismantling the plaintiffs unpatented machines and copying those parts. See id. at 1263. The court stated, “[S]uch methodology is not unlawful. Unfair competition goes to the question of marketing, not to the question of manufacture. One may be perfectly within his legal rights in producing an item and yet well without them in his method of selling if he markets his own item- in such a way that there is likely confusion as to the source of manufacture.” See id. According to the court, despite the fact that the defendant could copy the plaintiffs product, it was liable for unfair competition because the defendant used merchandising techniques and 775, (2d Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); Summit Mach. Tool Manuf. Corp. v. Victor CNC

A: holding that attorneys fees and statutory damages were unavailable because the copyright was not registered at the time the alleged infringement occurred
B: holding that lanham act claim was not prohibited due to fact that author had not registered copyright
C: holding that while the computer program at issue was within the subject matter of copyright the right sought under state law pursuant to a license was not equivalent to the exclusive rights under copyright as such copyright preemption did not apply
D: holding that the copyright act distinguishes between employees and independent contractors for copyright possession
B.