Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
conjunction with the use of FLEXLINE the significance of the relatedness factor is significantly diminished. 3. Similarity a. In evaluation the similarity of trademarks, a superficial side-by-side comparison is not the appropriate test. Wynn Oil, 839 F.2d at 1188. Rather, “the marks must be viewed in their entirety and in context.” Homeowners Group, 931 F.2d at 1109. “A court must determine, in the light of what occurs in the marketplace, whether the mark will be confusing to the public when singly presented.” Id. (citations omitted). The addition of words can be sufficient to distinguish marks. See In re Hearst Corp., 982 F.2d 493 (1992) (finding presence of term GIRL in VARGA GIRL sufficient to distinguish from VARGAS for identical goods); Frisch’s Restaurants, 759 F.2d 1261, 1266-67 . Slight modifications of a mark do not
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that since we have already held that the concurrent use of plaintiffs mark by the defendants creates the likelihood of confusion the inescapable conclusion is that there was also irreparable injury
B. holding that as in an action alleging infringement of a mark likelihood of confusion is the essence of an unfair competition claim
C. holding that the use of the shoneys name over any subsidiary product line mark  reduces the likelihood of confusion
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
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.