permission i would prefer to address the main issue of the case kind of get a running start in toronto and then discuss randy in the context of the entire case but i will give the court a sneak preview i don't believe rhonda is relevant in this case at all  it's a factually distinguishable case in the same way that the media is the main issues here are what constitutes advertising and more specifically where magnetos activities here advertise district court felt compelled by how media which came out after the briefing was done and just before the court heard argument on this district court felt compelled by how many needs to rule that method to his activities were not advertising the court said at the hearing and i quote that prior to the honeyed case i have been on record as holding that the advertising clause covers this type of claim but the honeyed case i think tied my hands up court should not have so found me did not tie the court's hands need was essentially a factually narrow case and it addressed only the question of whether advertising and again i salon all of the traces cited by him mean were personal solicitation cases they didn't cite any trade cases trade show cases our case does not involve any sort of personal solicitation it involves what i would refer to as real advertising not the kind of advertising through the media that one often thinks of as advertising to the general public but it involves real advertising and therefore while i think that one can understand why a court might be reluctant to include the kind of personal solicitation and what i would call frankly it's really neat involved taking a competitor is a former employer's customer list and using it to try to for lack of a better word steal the former employers customers i can understand why a court would be reluctant to they take that kind of that activity call it advertising and give it coverage when you're an advertising injury cla cases the only cases i'm not trying to skirt the court's question i think perhaps in the courts the very very narrow factual scenario that the court is set up i suppose that would be less like advertising a trade show but the only three cases that have discussed this question in the context of a trade show have all agreed with our position that it is  not only have they agree but they use words like clearly it cannot be questions they are very certain that trade shows constitute advertising and one of those cases is the outcome hardwork case which is a california case what about if it's mega to waste simply put a stop sign outside of a business that have the same happy right if you would that the advertising injury i'm sorry to put a sign outside your business put a van are outside your business you have a street business you know street side business where that's the advertising to simply put a banner outside your you don't have real advertising you have taking customer lists ok which i think it's clearly clearly not advertising it's like taking something a square peg in trying to fit it into a round advertising hole ok on the other hand on the other end of the spectrum you'd have media advertising like being the babies or are cabbage patch kids t advertising but our case is different our case is the trade show our case to me clearly falls at least halfway and much closer to me advertising because trade shows are the way that many rigid in their businesses truly advertise their products i think one of the problems that we know what a trade but we're trying to figure out does it fit within the contract definition of advertising so if you look at the contract definition it has to be a notice broadcast  publish to the general public or specific markets so yes what under that definition do you view and notice that it's broadcast to th are starting forth your product you know you mentioned in an earlier stage the three cases directly on point you mention by name all com hardware with which i'm familiar yes what are the other two the others are there's the bear wolf case in florida and the other cases i believe it's called fireman's fund versus bradley it's a wisconsin understood to fall within the definition of advertising i don't know how it could be any point well they're talking about and i was talking about actually ask you know whether the contractual definition of an elkhound was the same as the contractual definition here because everything depends on the contract and the contract here defines ever ties want as a notice right which sounds like a thing rather than an activity i believe i believe that that all of these contractual provisions use the same basic language i think that the only difference in some of these contractual for versions for example between hamid and ron they between honeyed in this case is that some of them say widespread dissemination or not widespread some of them say to the general public and some say to the general public we do have a contractual definition so i actually don't have to go by what the contract says the current well actually yes if you have a contractual definition you go by what the contract and the contract says that it's you're focusing on a different word i think than all of the cases do and that's noticed i don't think any of the i don't think any of the cases are very thorny problem with the word notice i think they all they all interpret the entire definition to to include tradeshow well you know how can you say that when we don't know if they're interpreting exactly the same contract provision i think it's important to focus on notice because i want to know what notice is in our hands i think most people generally would have a notion of what's advertising it may be too narrow in fact based on the contract so then we go to that because people think of advertising and promotional materials that are disseminated to public that may be too narrow so you go to the contract and say well what it has to be and i know this has to be broadcast or publish d so i might that was my question to you are you saying the noticed is simply putting the toys on the table is it doesn't really it doesn't apply here because for the same reason that hamid doesn't apply it wasn't a python actually ron they was just like i need in terms of dealing with personal different from hamid because in hamid the because the policy was different and wrong they the policy referred to advertising to the general public or to a specific market segment therefore the question of specific market segment was not an issue when ron day and the only issue iran day was whether what the promotional activities were widespread and they found at a breakfast meeting and an internet follow up was not widespread we don't have that problem falling into the meat category of being very clearly factually distinction thank you thank you morning jim thornton for tokyo marine happily i think that this case has made and they need to be understood in the context of what was going on before in terms of what we're insured and insurers arguing about with regard to advertising and they're basically these three views the widespread this tribute to the public at large view was eventually adopted by have meet the individual down to even individual one on one solicitations or discussions of you that was argued in quite a number of cases and adopted in quite a number of cases and then sort of an intermediate view which was sort of a foxfire approach from the northern district of california which talked about we have to consider who is the insured what is their market and you sort of do an ad hoc analysis of the situation and i meet did deal with personal solicitation by telephone with people on a customer list and sending flyers to people on a customer lest this customer list having been taken from by employees from the former employer to the new employer so if actually that is the pattern of it but what the court holds is much broader than that because they say this is not advertising and then they go on to discuss foxfire and they say no this is not something that we can accept the definition is to malakal and it's going to create a lot of problems we identify all these policy concerns that we anyway so what we need did is they gave us some examples they said what is advertising it's a t v spot it's a radio spot it's an ad in the newspaper it's the billboard it's a bus bench board they give us those examples from the fact that in there we know the things that are not advertising are sending letters to everyone on your customer list phoning up everyone on your customer list and so you do have to space at the trade show just like you rent space to store on the street or your rental store in a mall we rent space at the trade show if a customer comes up then the sales representative will talk to them about features about the product which is just  shelf or on a table let's talk to them about features that are not readily observable i guess maybe the quality of the stuffing of the plush all figures something like that so that is basically they've set up a temporary venue where they're going to have these one on one communications with whoever comes up to see and it's a very narrow set is this is in a d a s to the set of the virus and some sort of middleman  y some sort of a middle layer of merchandising there when you and i have a further question about the way the contract works it also defines advertising injury and here it  infringement issue when the contract talks about advertising injury does that even cover at all alleged infringement by the underlying moves or just that only cover infringement use the phrase just do it because that infringes on us on something that we have used so what what is your view of what the contract covers our view is that the contract covers injury  caused by the advertising and not by the sale of the good it's being advertised so for instance you could have you could have a pictorial or a picture element in an advertisement by a competitor a could take a very similar picture basically copying the you know photographic elements maybe even copying the photograph itself something that happens a lot on the internet now that's been a copyright infringement that gets incorporated into defined in the contract that's correct in fact that's one of the points that was discussed in the ron they case they were they were talking about this practice meeting where they invited all the temp employees and all the customers to say hey we're going out on our own now and then they discussed a follow up article in an internet newspaper and the court said conducted that analysis well the there was this newspaper article but nothing in the newspaper article discussed any of the intellectual property that was there is at issue in th case so they need to conduct that analysis there has to be in the advertisement the question here though if you look at what trade shows are the purpose of them is promotional and promotional to particular segment i mean the toy people show up at these and not the cosmetics manufacturers or retailers or los angeles so if i'm sure you've been in your position to a number of these kind of trade shows we're basically in a booth after booth is promoting products yes so that they can get to the middleman so that they can eventually get out to the public if you look at it in that regard it's hard to say why this promotional effort wouldn't be advertising because it is the market segment that they're pointed to is in effect for the middle market why isn't that advertis well because the cordon homemade and the cordon rom they are trying to draw a distinction so that there's some easy certainty of applications of all of these some clarity in interpreting them and saying that it has to be a widespread distribution so what goes on in the trade show is not some of these types of trade shows is not widespread distribution but one really let me stop there because you know it's one thing to call up a couple customers than a trade show is to oh it's a widespread distribution to that particular market segment isn't it i mean if all the people from that market segment to the trade show was for if it's not a one on one proposition it's it is distribution to that group of people who come to the trade show but i don't think it comes within the widespread distribution of the course  calling for the other thing about a trade show it's important to look at the white brand distribution because that was that was really not do we have that language that's tied up with specific market segment where the court is really interpret what widespread means when it's directed to a specific market segment as opposed to the public at large if you have a case that we could go to other than him then that would difficulty in that and that never really gets to the issue we have yeah but see the other thing is you're talking about promoting to everyone that comes to the trade show if i have a shop you know a mall that's promoting to everyone that comes by the shop and no one's going to say that's advertising  you know if we have sort of an idea sort of a plain ordinary meaning of advertising in our head we don't think it means having a shop in a mall or a shop on the street a booth in a strawberry for instance like the rose will swap meet we don't think of those things as advertising radically different really isn't this case because there was mailing out of brochures there was stuff on the internet i mean there was traditional advertising and they all come hardware yeah the back catalog issue and the contractual definition different definition yes and  but i think it's not controlling if you look at the decision the florida courts are really proceeding under a different set of rules than california courts so they're reading as i can look at the contract it looks like a virtually identical contract yeah so when you a different set of rules well you mean in other words the rules articulated one hundred eight and wrong way as to what advertising means i see that they're there but they're basically looking at the same counter and the other thing that's different about it that's different about that case is  was some more elaborate presentation than just having a product on the shelf and you know what they were at a trade show people came around and looked at these cigar something with a cigar shaped lighters and they had like an oversized cigar with as i look at this is i don't have anything after actually directly on point in california i can i can are i can i can hear the arguments on both sides as to how the cases we do have come come in our case and give us  answers not anything directly on point i've got two cases out of california that on the facts are very samar there wolf i know it is and i suspect harmless fun when i read it will be what basis do we have and do you see any distinction where the effort is made at a trade show to promote your products so they can get out to be sold in other ways your form of advertising is not advertising on the internet advertising on n b c or that your form of advertising is promotion to the people who can actually get it out there so it could be put have your demonstrating your product you're putting it out for people to take a look at as they walk by whether it's in a mall or a store a swap in the booth or a trade show and you really got to focus i think on the case this case really focuses much more the i think that comes back again to what is the california supreme court mean by widespread in how many and in my view is that it wouldn't be widespread because it's limited to the you know what's going on in trade show just like you know what breeders or racing car enthusiasts those are the examples they give i think focusing on this particular case i mean the very easy way to look at it is what did they do at the trade show and what they did at the trade show is no different than what you would do and any basic shop you have your goods out for people to walk by take a look at ask you questions and maybe five of the function of a trade show is really quite different and the people coming are you know the i understand the analogy  statement that al com is not a trade show case i must respectfully disagree all there was a trade show mentioned at the end of a long paragraph of activities no it's more than that and i would call the court's attention unfortunately i don't have a  paragraph states that separate and apart from the brochure forget the brochure even if the brochure doesn't count separate and apart from the brochure the trade show standing by court seems to be concerned with the word novice which frankly i think until now i don't think anybody paid attention to that word wasn't briefed before the district court i just don't believe that that was really part of the case i am certain the wireless contract well that's one of the points i want to make there's two points first of all i'd be happy to submit supplemental briefings but i do want to call the court's attention that i'm really not sure that it's part of the contract and here is why there are three contracts that were three insurance contracts in this case one after the other and it's a little bit unclear but it appears to me that the the applicable insurance policy in this case is the first one that was issued and i will find in the court of the court was why i think that but i think it is the first one that was issued that's the applicable policy and that one does not define advertising the latter to do so if in fact the first one is the one  then the question of notice doesn't come up is the first this is a claim made it appears it appears to me and again i don't think anybody ever paid much attention to this because they simply stipulated there are three policies no nobody ever talks about which one applies i believe that the policies indicate that it's when the the act that gave rise to the injury occurred  occurred at the trade show in the trade show was during the policy period of the first policy i think that that would avoid the whole question of notice but if the