Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Moreover, although the Burberry Check mark does not include an equestrian knight, it is undisputed that Burberry has obtained trademark protection for an equestrian knight mark, and that it often sells handbags and other goods displaying a combination of the two marks. It is also undisputed that Appellants used their mark on handbags — the same category of goods on which Burberry used its marks. The district court was therefore correct to afford the jury the opportunity to view the government’s evidence and form an independent conclusion regarding whether Appellants’ plaid design was substantially indistinguishable from the Burberry Check mark and whether the inclusion of the equestrian knight figure made any difference. See United States v. Yi, 460 F.3d 623, 629 n. 4 (5th Cir.2006). And this evidence was sufficient to support
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that when determining prejudice under the objective test relevant considerations include 1 whether the extrinsic evidence was received by the jury and the manner in which it was received 2 whether it was available to the jury for a lengthy period of time 3 whether it was discussed and considered extensively by the jury 4 whether it was introduced before a jury verdict was reached and if so at what point during the deliberations and 5 whether it was reasonably likely to affect the verdict considering the strength of the governments case and whether the governments case outweighed any possible prejudice caused by the extrinsic evidence
B. holding that it was for the jury to determine whether a battery that used the signature duracell copper top and black body was a counterfeit even though the text on the counterfeit battery read dinacell
C. holding that the trial court must determine whether there was ever an agreement when the party resisting arbitration alleged that its signature was a forgery
D. holding that the jury must determine whether the partys conduct was reasonable under the cireumstances
E. holding the excluded testimony was relevant to whether a signature was that of a deceased party and since a statement regarding the issue was the only testimony that could be given by the witness no offer to prove was necessary because the substance of the evidence was apparent from the context of the question asked
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.