Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
agent” that has been designated by the plaintiffs to appoint licensees of their merchandise, and receives a royalty for the licensing fees that are generated. The only exceptions to CLC’s exclusive agency designations are for certain non-retail sales such as “university purchases for internal consumption” or “student organization use.” Section 1125(a)(1) of the Lanham Act specifically provides that a cause of action may be asserted by “any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged” by infringing conduct, and the Fifth Circuit has held on several occasions that this provision permits the assertion of unfair competition claims by exclusive trademark licensees. See Martin’s Herend Imports v. Diamond & Gem Trading USA, 112 F.3d 1296, 1301 n. 10 (5th Cir.1997) ; Norman M. Morris Corp. v. Weinstein, 466 F.2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the plaintiff an exclusive licensee of the mark had standing to bring a claim under  43a
B. holding that exclusive importer had standing to sue for unfair competition under  1125a
C. holding the homeowners association had standing to sue under the theory of promissory estoppel
D. holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue
E. holding that employers have standing to sue
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.