the first of the programs was called over washington the registration list over the in the blank with the appropriate title in two thousand june two thousand and four red bull g m ph filed two petitions trying to let's look at the definition of policy your state policy year means the period of the one year following the inception of this policy and any anniversary there are this policy refers to the two thousand and three two thousand us the earliest policy year to find can only be referring to that year two thousand and three two thousand four if it is the period of one year following the good morning your honour's may have pleased the court i'm john wilson i represent federal the question we judge martinez had and your honors have is does this policy you know to policy or even the zero four policy covered the zero to petition the short answer is no judge marciano's told you properly it's not a claim for a wrongful act the insurance provision states written that the policy is only triggered when a written notice is made in the year in which you received that there was no dispute that they received written they received notice to us receive notice and of the january seven o to complain with six months left under that policy and they did not comply with that condition of the policy and therefore there is no coverage period related that those are interrelated actually relates back it doesn't relate to when courts interpret contracts they don't interpret them according to the weird standard they interpret them to according to the plain meaning standard and they don't take a single word like no nothing at all to do with it because the trigger for any any claim under a claims made policy is the submission to the insurer of a written notice of the cl that's the trick before you even attempt to define whether it's a wrongful act or all acts or related back or not because in all four there was indeed a wrongful act allege the product claims that somehow that allegation which we accepted under reservation of rights transformed the descriptives identical descriptive use claim into a wrongful act and therefore the otu was a wrongful act and judged martina's properly rejected that analysis it was not descriptive use was not a wrongful act in zero two it wasn't in zero four the fraud claim is but it doesn't transform now if you wish to understand the meaning of wrongful act first of all you have to look at what is the context that that term is used in the policy and what you see is wrongful act is mentioned for a variety of reasons including the trigger throughout the policy  the wrong foot the use of the trauma wrongful throughout the policy and the definition of wrongful acts as errors in the statement in this leading statements omissions neglect breach of duty is meaningless  cases and basically the courts looked at what washington courts looked at what should courts examined in determining whether or not there is coverage and in kids and cleo and ball the courts concluded that it's because of action it's the theory of the claim it's not mention of damages and the theory of the claim here is the descriptive use the perfect choice language that read all  is or may be damaged there's prefatory language here you can claim ultimately fire i don't know where that would lead in the process because there are of variety of ways to cancel a mark and one of them is descriptive you have switch we submit is not a or is this a properly registered trademark and they made that judgment at the time and leave it as something an argument well or someone presented whatever evidence they did and red bull in their petition said just that they said what's decision year after year and in the terms of that policy if the interrelated acts covering a period of time in which the policy is essentially still in effect because it's been renewed that's absolutely right you can recover for