What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 

Your task concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)". Your task is to determine what category of business best describes the area of activity of this litigant which is involved in this case.

Opinion:
LANOLIN PLUS COSMETICS, Inc. v. MARZALL, Commissioner of Patents, et al.
No. 11207.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Feb. 26, 1952.
Decided April 17, 1952.
James R. McKnight, Chicago, Ill., of the Bar of the Supreme Court of Illinois, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Emory L. Groff, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.
Horst von Maltitz, New York City, of the Bar of the Court of Appeals of New York, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Alfons B. Landa and Raymond C. Cushwa, Washington, D. G., were on the brief, for appellee Botany Mills, Inc.
E. L. Reynolds, Sol., United States Patent Office, Washington, D. C., entered an appearance for appellee John A. Marzall, Commissioner of Patents.
Before EDGERTON, WILBUR K. MILLER, and PRETTYMAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant sued under R.S. § 4915, 35 U.S.C.A. § 63, to register Lanolin Plus as a trade mark for soap and cosmetics. The Patent Office and the District Court held that as applied to such articles the mark is “descriptive” and therefore not entitled to registration under the Trade Mark Act of 1905, § 5, 33 Stat. 725-726, 15 U.S.C.A. § 85(b). Appellant appears to be right in its contention that a number of similar trade marks which the Patent Office has registered are equally descriptive. But the fact that the Office has erred in those instances does not mean it should err in this one.
Affirmed.
. The Patent Office proceeding was begun before July 5, 1947. Section 2e of the Trade Mark Act of 1946, 60 Stat. 429, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1052(e), is not applicable to “any suit, proceeding, or appeal then pending.” 60 Stat. 444. Both the old Act and the new use the word “descriptive”.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)". What category of business best describes the area of activity of this litigant which is involved in this case?

Choices:
agriculture
mining
construction
manufacturing
transportation
trade
financial institution
utilities
other
unclear

Answer: 3