Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
created, not the individual features.” Gateway, Inc. v. Companion Prods., Inc., 384 F.3d 503, 507 (8th Cir.2004). A parody does not receive absolute protection from trademark law; however, “a parody contained in an obvious editorial context is less likely to confuse, and thus [is] more deserving of protection than [trade dress and trademarks] displayed on a product.” Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Balducci Publ’ns, 28 F.3d 769, 776 (8th Cir.1994). Although the Lanham Act does not require that a parody carry a disclaimer, the fact that the parody carries a label stating “satire” or “parody” “should alert most consumers” that the item is a parody. Cliffs Notes, Inc. v. Bantam Doubleday Dell Publ’g Group, Inc., 886 F.2d 490, 496 (2d Cir.1989). See also Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 28 F.3d at 776-77 . When determining the likelihood of confusion,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that because the defendant could not have reasonably believed that the third person would have been justified in using force the trial courts finding of guilt was supported by substantial evidence
B. holding that ad parody violated lanham act but that by using an obvious disclaimer defendant could have substantially lessened risk of consumer confusion
C. holding that a statement of remorse by defendant would not have substantially affected the jurys deliberations
D. holding that the least sophisticated consumer standard applies to whether  1692e has been violated
E. holding that a contractor who had substantially complied with the building specifications substantially performed
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.