With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the Tenth Circuit summarized these principles aptly: The mere fact that Supervision was advertised or distributed at some point in time is not sufficient to transform Bur-son’s ownership infringement claims into advertising injury. See Novell [v. Federal Ins. Co.], 141 F.3d [983] at 988 [(10th Cir.1998)] (“The fact [the insured] may have advertised the competing product to consumers simply did not cause [the underlying plaintiffs] injuries”); see also Microtec Research, Inc. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 40 F.3d 968, 971 (9th Cir.1994) (“If the [insured] does some wrongful act and then advertises it, harm caused by the wrongful act alone is not within the scope of the term advertising injury.”); Farmington [v. Cyberlogic Technologies, Inc.], 996 F.Supp. [695] at 702 [ (E.D.Mich.1998) ] (<HOLDING>). “Otherwise, advertising injury coverage would

A: holding that there must be a causal connection between an insureds advertising and an alleged injury to trigger coverage for an advertising injury
B: holding that causal connection between alleged injuries and advertising activity cannot be satisfied by a mere showing that the allegedly infringing product was advertised
C: holding that five weeks between protected activity and adverse employment action insufficient to establish a causal connection
D: holding that there must be some causal connection between the accident and the automobile allegedly involved for coverage to exist
B.