With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Fiberglas Corp., 196 U.S. Pat. Q. 726, 745 (N.D. Ala. 1977) (defendant promoted and sold product “with the specific recommendation that they be used in an infringing manner,” i.e., molded under heat and pressure to approximate a patented product). Here, North American Philips’s complaint did not allege that Konami provided any detailed instructions to its customers on how to infringe the patent. Indeed, as noted above, North American Philips’s complaint did not allege that it was injured at all in the course of Konami’s advertising. Without such a connection to advertising activities, Konami cannot be afforded coverage under the advertising injury provision of the CGL policy. See International Insurance Co. v. Florists’ Mutual Insurance Co., 201 Ill. App. 3d 428, 433 (1990) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, we believe Konami’s reliance on

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 there must be a causal connection between the alleged antitrust violation and the antitrust injury for there to be antitrust standing
D: holding that there must be a causal connection between the advertising activity and the injury alleged in the underlying complaint
D.