With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Plaintiff used BOX Partners instead of BOX Packaging. Multiple exhibits, including countless invoices, paperwork, correspondence, and advertisements, refer only to BOX Partners, and not BOX Packaging. While many of these invoices are from more recent years, the record reveals that Plaintiff started to use BOX Partners more frequently over referring to itself as Box Packaging. Plaintiff also changed the sign outside its office from BOX Packaging to BOX Partners and employees use “box-partners.com” email addresses. Irrespective of when all of these changes occurred, Plaintiffs inconsistent use of BOX Packaging contradicts its attempts to establish a secondary meaning through exclusivity, length and manner of use. See Gimix, Inc. v. JS & A Group, Inc., 699 F.2d 901, 907 (7th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, Plaintiff is correct that a product

A: holding that inconsistent advertising of an alleged protected trademark for five years did not establish secondary meaning
B: holding that there must be a causal connection between an insureds advertising and an alleged injury to trigger coverage for an advertising injury
C: holding that sentences of five years in prison followed by ten years probation were illegal sentences that exceeded the statutory maximum of five years for a thirddegree felony
D: holding that defendants statement that it owned the rights to a trademark did not give rise to a false advertising claim under the lanham act
A.