Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
idea’ of the ‘characteristics’ of the product.” Black & Decker, 944 F.Supp. at 225 (quoting Abercrombie & Fitch v. Hunting World, Inc., 537 F.2d 4, 11 (2d Cir.1976)). No exercise of the imagination is necessary to perceive that PowerCheck enables a consumer to check, or verify, the power in the battery. See Thompson Med. Co., 753 F.2d at 216. Indeed, as noted above, in 1981, Anderson registered POW-R-CHEK as a mark, and four other companies are presently marketing products with a power verification feature called “power check.” The use of the identical term by several companies to describe diverse products with a power-verification feature supports the Court’s conclusion that the term PowerCheck is descriptive and thus not particularly distinctive. See Estee Lauder, 108 F.3d at 1511 . As the Second Circuit has noted, “[t]he
```
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 there was no renewal but finding estoppel on the part of the landlord
C. holding that district courts finding of distinctiveness of mark 100 used in respect to facial moisturizer was undermined by the trial evidence that there were approximately 70 trademark registrations and pending applications for registration or renewal that incorporated the term 100 some of which were for cosmetic products
D. holding that district courts lack jurisdiction to review denied applications when deportation proceedings are pending
E. holding that the district court to not clearly err in finding that a distance of 100 feet is within the curtilage
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.