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.

... to certify the goods or services of any person who meets the standards and conditions which the mark certifies.” In re University of Mississippi, 1 U.S.P.Q.2d 1909, 1911, 1987 WL 123808 (T.T.A.B.1987). That the owner of a certification mark “cannot refuse to license the mark to anyone on any ground other than the standards it has set,” 3 McCarthy at § 19.96, is an important distinction between the policies embodied in trademarks and certification marks. It is true that certification marks are designed to facilitate consumer expectations of a standardized product, much like trademarks are designed to ensure that a consumer is not confused by the marks on a product. See, e.g. Institut Nat’l Des Appellations d’Origine v. Brown-Forman Corp., 47 U.S.P.Q.2d 1875, 1889-90 (T.T.A.B.1998) (<HOLDING>). But the certification mark regime protects a 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that same likelihood of confusion test applied in the context of trademarks also applies to certification marks (B) holding that the likelihood of confusion resulting from the defendants adoption of a trade dress similar to the plaintiffs the touchstone test for a violation of  1125 (C) holding that plaintiff was likely to succeed on merits of  349 claim premised on likelihood of confusion between marks (D) holding that concurrent use of same mark on similar product was sufficient to demonstrate a likelihood of confusion (E) holding that even several isolated incidents of actual confusion are insufficient to support a finding of likelihood of confusion
holding that the likelihood of confusion resulting from the defendants adoption of a trade dress similar to the plaintiffs the touchstone test for a violation of  1125