Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
then think that the Mobile Desk may be produced by the same company (or a company affiliated with the company) that makes the Lap .Traveler. To answer this question, it is helpful to review “the basic objectives of trademark law,” which the United States Supreme Court has described as follows: In principle, trademark law, by preventing others from copying a source-identifying mark, “reduce[s] the customer’s costs of shopping and making purchasing decisions,” for it quickly and easily assures a potential customer that this item — the item with this mark — is made by the same producer as other similarly marked items that he or she liked (or disliked) in the past. At the same time, the law helps assure a producer that it (and not an imitat ntertainment Corp., 174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir.1999) . But these courts have all relied on the fact
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that there is nothing improper about the use of a trademark to communicate that goods bearing that mark were actually sold on defendants website
B. holding that defendants use of domain names such as peterbilttruckscom and kenworthnewtruckscom violated plaintiffs trademark rights in the marks peterbilt and kenworth
C. holding that the defendants use of the domain name moviebuffcom violated plaintiffs trademark rights in the mark moviebufp
D. holding limited use of a mark did not constitute prior use in commerce sufficient to establish rights in the mark
E. holding that the defendants reference to the plaintiffs trademark in the metatags of the defendants web page was a violation of trademark law
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.