You will be given a definition of a task first, then some input of the task.
In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision. Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

Kompan's trade dress contributes to a likelihood of confusion in the context of two lines of playground furniture which are very similar overall. Kompan has also established that the similarities contribute to a likelihood of confusion. Kompan argues that similarities in trade name Karavan and Kompan and in catalog format should also be weighed in assessing similarity. The Karavan catalog format does not by itself closely approximate Kom-pan's catalog. Any confusion caused by the catalog can be attributed either to the similarities in the products themselves or to the similarities in trade names. The Kompan and Karavan trade names are similar in both configuration and sound. See Grotrian, Helfferich, Schulz, Th. Steinweg Nachf. v. Steinway & Sons., 523 F.2d 1331, 1340 (2d Cir.1975) (<HOLDING>) PSI argues that these similarities are
Holding statements: (A) holding that trademarks like small children are not only seen but heard (B) holding that time limits in title vii are not jurisdictional but are instead like statutes of limitations (C) holding that the cumulative effect of the prosecutors comments which as seen above are welldocumented errors denied appellant a fair trial (D) holding wife unreasonably exposed neighbors children to danger because she invited the children over in spite of knowing her husband had molested children in the past (E) holding that the bia correctly imputed a parents knowledge that she and her children were not eligible for entry to the united states to her children
Output:
holding that time limits in title vii are not jurisdictional but are instead like statutes of limitations