## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 1- 18 02

__ __ __ __ __ _

In te rs ta te Bak eri es Co rp or at io n, *

* App el la nt , *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s

v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e

* W es te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i. One Bea co n In su ran ce Co m pa ny, *

* App el le e. *

__ __ __ __ __ _
Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 15 , 20 11 Fi le d: Ju ly 24, 2 01 2

__ __ __ __ __ _
Befo re SM ITH, COLLOTO N, and GRUENDER, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ _
GRUENDER, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

In t ers ta te Bak eri es Co rp or at io n (“ IBC” ) ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s or de r 1 2
ho ld in g th at One Bea co n In su ran ce Co m pa ny (“ One Bea co n” ), IBC’s in su rer, do es no t
ha ve a du ty to de fen d IBC in a su it br ou g h t b y F l o wers Bak eri es Bran ds

, In c. (“ Fl owe rs ”). Fo r th e rea so ns th at fol lo w, we affi rm

.

IBC c ha ng ed it s n am e to Hos te ss Bran ds , Inc . on Nov em be r 2, 2 00 9. 1

The Hon or ab le Sara h W

. Hay s, Uni te d St at es M a gi st rat e Ju dg e fo r th e 2
W es te rn Dis tri ct of Mi ss ou ri, to who m th e cas e was refe rred by co ns en t of th e pa rti es pu rs ua nt to 28 U.S.C. § 6 36 (c).I. BACKGRO UND

The cen tra l qu es ti on in t h i s c a s e is whe th er One Bea co n ha s a du ty t o de fen d
IBC in an act io n (“ un de rlyin g li ti ga ti on ”) th at Fl owe rs br ou gh t ag ai ns t IBC.
Acco rd in g to th e co m

pl ai nt in th e un de rlyin g li ti ga ti on (“ Fl o w e rs Co m pl ai nt ”),
Fl owe rs pr od uc es an d m ark et s “ fres h bre ad s and bu ns un de r th e NATURE’ S OW N

tra de m ark .” Fl owe rs cl ai m s t h a t th e Natu re’s Own m ark ha s “ si gn ifi can t fam e an d

pu bl ic reco gn it io n,” “ tre m en do us po wer as a so ur ce id e n t i f i e r,” “ co m

m erci al

m ag ne ti sm an d go od wil l,” an d “ po si ti ve as so ci at io ns an d pr es ti gi ou s co nn ot at io ns .”
The Fl owe rs Co m

pl ai nt fu rth er al le ge s th at IBC “ is us in g or pr ep ari ng to us e, or ha s
st at ed an in te nt to us e an d ot he rwis e pr omo t e d

, th e NATURE’ S PRIDE an d
NATURE’ S CHOICE tra de m ark s in co nn ect io n wit h pa ck ag ed br ead s, whi ch m ark s

are co nf us in gly sim il ar to Fl owe rs ’[s] NATURE’ S OW N tra de m ark .” Ult im at el y , th e Fl owe rs Co m

pl ai nt as se rts fiv e sp eci fic co un ts ag ai ns t IBC: ( 1 ) f e de ral tra de m ark
in fri nge m en t, (2 ) fed eral un fai r co m pe ti ti on , (3 ) st at e tra de m ark di lu ti on , (4 ) co m m on la w and st at e u nf

ai r co m pe ti ti on , and (5) un fai r an d d ecep ti ve tra de pra ct ic es

.

IBC m ai nt ai ne d an “ Adv ert is er Adv an ta ge ” in su ran ce po li cy wit h One Bea co n th at pr ov id ed co ve rag e fo r l o s s r e s u lt in g fro m “ cl ai m s ari si ng fro m an oc curr ence

c om m it te d by th e in su red du rin g th e po li cy term in or fo r sc hedu le d ad ve rti si n g

an d ari si ng fro m ” an y of se ve n en um erat ed gr ou nd s. IBC su bm it s th at th e fo ll owi ng 3

two gr ou nd s are ap pl ic ab le he re: “ (5 ) in fri ng em en t of tit le or sl og an ” an d “ (6 ) un fai r

co m pe ti ti on an d cl ai m s u n d e r S e ct io n 43 (a) of th e Lan ha m Act or si m il ar st at e
st at ut es ” whe n al le ge d wit h a cau se of act io n se t fo rth un de r gr ou nd (5 ). The po li cy

ex cl ud ed fro m co ve rag e cl ai m s “ fo r or ari si ng fro m in fri ng em en t or di lu ti on of

t r a d em ark

, tra de na m e, tra de dr es s, se rv ic e m ark or se rv ic e na m e or un fai r

The te rm s in bo ld fo nt are de fin ed in th e p o l i c y; we pr ov id e th e ap pl ic ab le 3 de fin it io ns as r el ev an t.

-2

-co m

pe ti ti on ari si ng th eref

ro m ,” wit h th e ex pl ic it pr ov is o th at “ th is ex cl us io n sh al l no t

ap pl y to cl ai m s for in fri ng em en t o f tit le or s lo ga n.”

Afte r One Bea co n refu se d to de fen d IBC in th e un de rlyin g la w s u i t, IBC
in it ia te d th is act io n se ek in g a de cl arat io n th at One Bea co n ha s a du ty to de fen d IBC.
IBC fil ed a m ot io n for par ti al su m m ary jud gm en t, argu in g th at “ Natu re’s O wn” is a

“ sl og an ” an d a “ ti tl e” un de r th e po li cy

. The di st ric t co ur t reject ed IBC’s co nt en ti on s

an d de ni ed IBC’s m ot io n. The co ur t th en en te red a jud gm en t in fav or of One Bea co n be cau se th e pa rti es ag reed t h a t th e co ur t’s co ns tru ct io n of th e po li cy in it s or de r de nyin g IBC’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t res ol ve d al l of th e is su es IBC rai se d in
th e act io n. IBC ap pe al s th e ad ve rs e jud gm en t an d th e di st ric t co ur t’s un de rlyin g

or de r de nyin g it s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. W e affi rm th e jud gm en t th at
One Bea co n do es no t ha ve a du ty to de fen d IBC in th e un de rlyin g li ti ga ti on be cau se

we co nc lu de th at th e Fl owe rs Co m pl ai nt fai le d to al le ge fact s th at wou ld in di cat e th e
tra de m ark ed ph ras e “

Natu re’s Own” is po te nt ia ll y a “ ti tl e” or a “ sl og an ” an d th at th e

reco rd in th is cas e is in su ffi ci en t to es ta bl is h wha t a reas o na bl e in ve st ig at io n by
One B e a co n wou ld ha ve rev eal ed ab ou t Fl owe rs ’s us e of th e “ Natu re’s Own”

tra de m ark

.

II

. DISCUSS IO N

W e rev ie w de no vo th e di st ric t co ur t’s un de rlyin g or de r de nyin g IBC’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. Se e Myer s v. Lu ts en Mou nt ai ns Co rp

. , 58 7 F.3 d 89 1
, 8 9 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). “ W e m ay affi rm th e jud gm en t of th e di st ric t co u r t ‘o n a n y b as is
di sc lo se d in th e reco rd

, whe th er or n o t t h e d i s tri ct co ur t ag reed wit h or ev en ad dr es se d th at gr ou nd .’ ” W ar ne r Bro s. Ent m’t, In c. v. X One X Pro ds

. , 64 4 F.3 d 58 4,
59 1 (8t h Ci r. 20 11 ) (q uo ti ng PFS Dis tr ib ut io n Co

. v. Rad ue ch el

, 57 4 F.3d 58 0, 59 1 (8 th Ci r

. 2 0 0 9 ) )

. In a di ve rs it y act io n su ch as th is

, “ [s ]tate la w go ve rn s th e in te rp ret at io n of in su ran ce po li ci es ,” Se cu ra In s. v. Hor iz on Plu mbi ng , In c. , 67 0 F.3 d
85 7, 86 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ), an d th e pa rti es ag ree th at Mi ss ou ri la w co nt ro ls

, se e

-3

-Ka uf

man n v. Si emen s Med

. So lu ti on s USA, In c. , 63 8 F.3 d 84 0, 84 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ).

“ If the Su pr em e Co ur t of Mis so ur i has no t add res se d an iss ue , we m us t pr ed ic t ho w th e co ur t wou ld ru le

, an d we fo ll ow de ci si on s fro m th e in te rm ed ia te st at e co ur ts whe n th ey are th e be st ev id en ce of Mi ss ou ri la w.” Eub an k v. Ka n. Ci ty Pow er & Li gh t Co

. , 62 6 F .3d 42 4, 4 27 (8t h C ir. 2 01 0)

.

“ The du ty to de fen d is de te rm in ed by co m pa rin g th e la ng ua ge of th e in su ran ce
po li cy wit h th e al le ga ti on s in th e co m pl ai nt .” McCo rma ck Bar on Mgmt

. Se rv s., In c. v. Am. Gua r. & Lia b. In s. Co

. , 9 89 S.W .2d 16 8, 17 0 (Mo . 1 99 9) . “ If t he co m pl ai nt

m erel y al le ge s fact s th at gi ve ris e to a cl ai m po te nt ia ll y wit hi n th e po li cy ’s co ve rag e, th e in su rer ha s a du ty to de fen d.” Id

. at 17 0- 71

. In ad di ti on , an i n s u r er can no t

“ m erel y res t up on th e al le ga ti on s co nt ai ne d wi th in th e p et it io n.” St ar k Li qu id at io n Co

. v. Flo ri st

s’ Mut

. In s. Co

. , 24 3 S.W .3d 38 5, 39 2 (Mo

. Ct

. App

. 20 07 ). Rat he r, th e in su rer sh ou ld al so co ns id er “ ot he r fact s it kn ew, or co u l d ha ve le arn ed fro m a ‘reaso na bl e in ve st ig at io n’ a t th e ti m e th e la wsu i t w as fil ed .” Se cu ra In s. , 6 70 F.3 d

at 86 1 (q uo ti ng Tr ai nw re ck W. In c. v. Bur li ng to n In s. Co

. , 23 5 S.W .3d 33 , 4 2 (M o. Ct

. App

. 20 07 )). The du ty t o d e f e n d “i s to be de te rm in ed fro m th e cau se of act io n pl ead ed

, at th e ti m e th e act io n is co m m en ced

, no t fro m wha t [a la te r] in ve st ig at io n or

a tri al of th e c a s e m ay sh ow th e tru e fact s to be .” Tr ai nw re ck

, 23 5 S.W .3d at 39 (em ph as is om it te d) (q uo ti ng In te r- St at e Oil Co

. v. Equ it y Mut

. In s. Co

. , 18 3 S.W .2d
32 8, 3 32 (Mo . Ct. Ap p. 1 94 4) ). In d et erm in in g wh et he r th ere is a du ty to d efen d, a

co ur t is ba rred fro m “ read in g in to [a co m pl ai nt ] an y fact ua l as su m

pt io ns .” Se e Pen nSt ar Ins . Co. v. Gr if

fe y , 30 6 S .W .3d 59 1, 5 99 (Mo . Ct. Ap p. 2 01 0)

.

The in su red

, I B C
, be ars th e bu rd en of pr ov in g co ve rag e, an d th e in su rer, One Bea co n, ha s th e bu rd en of sh owi ng th at an ex cl us io n fro m co ve rag e ap pl ie s. Se e Tr uc k In s. Exch

. v. Pra ir ie Fra min g, LLC
, 16 2 S.W .3d 64
, 80 (Mo

. Ct

. App

. 20 05 ).

“ To ext ric at e it se lf fro m a du ty to de fen d a su it ag ai ns t th e in su red

, th e in su rer m us t
de m on st rat e th at th ere is no po ss ib il it y of co ve rag e.” Cu st om Har dw ar e Eng ’g &
Co ns ul ti ng

, In c. v. Ass ur an ce Co

. of

Am.
, 29 5 S.W .3d 55 7, 56 1 (Mo

. Ct

. App

. 20 09 ).

-4

-“ The pr es en ce of so m e in su red cl ai m s in th e un de rlyin g su it gi ve s ris e to a du ty to

d e f e n d

, ev en th ou gh un in su red cl ai m s or cl ai m s be y on d th e co ve rag e m ay al so b e
pr es en t.” La mpe rt

v. St at e Far m Fi re & Ca s. Co

. , 8 5 S.W .3d 90 , 93 (Mo . Ct. Ap p. 20 02 ).

“ The in te rp ret at io n of an in su ran ce po li cy is a qu es ti on of la w.” McCo rma ck

, 98 9 S.W .2d at 17 1. W e m us t “ as cert ai n th e in te nt io n of th e pa rti es an d

. . . gi ve effe ct

to th at in te nt io n.” Se cu ra In s. , 67 0 F.3 d at 86 1 (q uo ti ng J.E. Hat hma n, In c. v. Si gma Alp ha Eps il on Cl ub

, 49 1 S.W .2d 26 1, 26 4 (Mo

. 19 73 )). The in te nt io n of th e pa rti es

“ is p r e su m

pt iv el y ex pr es se d by th e ‘pla in an d or di na ry m ean in g’ of th e po li cy ’s

pr ov is io ns ,” id

. (q uo ti ng Mo. Emp’r s Mut

. In s. Co

. v. Ni ch ol

s , 14 9 S.W .3d 61 7, 62 5 (Mo

. Ct

. App

. 20 04 )), “ whi ch are read ‘in th e co nt ex t of th e po li cy as a who le ,’ ” id

. (q uo ti ng Am. St at es In s. Co

. v. Mat hi s , 97 4 S.W .2d 64 7, 64 9 (Mo

. Ct

. App

. 19 98 )).

Bec au se IBC as se rts th at One Bea c o n h a s a du ty to de fen d IBC un de r po li cy
pr ov is io ns rel at in g on ly to in fri ng em en t of tit le s and sl og an s, IB C o nl y su ccee ds if, gi ve n th e reco rd in th is cas e, th e ph ras e “ Natu re’s Own” is po te nt ia ll y a “ ti tl e” or a

“ sl og an ” un de r th e po li cy

. IBC co nt en ds th at th e ph ras e “ Natu re’s Own” co ns ti tu te s bo th a “ ti tl e” an d a “ sl og an .” W e ad dr es s ea ch co nt en ti on in tu rn

.

A. In fri ng ement of a Tit le

IBC arg ue s th at th e ph ras e “ Natu re’s Own” is th e ti tl e of th e wrap pe rs in whi ch

F l owe rs pa ck ag es it s br ead pr od uc ts an d th at th e Fl owe rs Co m pl ai nt al l e g i n g in fri ng em en t of th e “ Natu re’s Own” tra de m ark th eref or e a l l e g e s in fri ng em en t of a ti tl e fo r whi ch th e po li cy pr ov id es co ve rag e. The po li cy de fin es “ ti tl e” as th e “ cap ti on

or na m e o f m at ter .” W e lo ok to th e di ct io na ry de fin it io n of “ cap ti on ” an d “ na m e”
be ca u s e th os e wor ds are no t de fin ed in th e po li cy

. Se e Sc hmi tz v. Gre at Am.
Ass ur an ce Co

. , 33 7 S.W

. 3 d 7 0 0
, 70 8 (Mo

. 20 11 ). As rel ev an t to th e fact s of th is

cas e, “ cap ti on ” is de fin ed as “ th e he ad in g es p[ ec ia ll y ] of an art ic le or do cu m en t,”

-5

-M

e r r i a m

- Web st er ’s Co ll eg ia te Dict io na ry 18 4 (1 1t h ed

. 20 05 ), an d “ na m e” is “ a

wor d or ph ras e th at co ns ti tu te s th e di st in ct iv e d es ig na ti on of a pe rs on or th in g,” id

. at 82 3. The po li cy de fin es “ m at te r” in part as “ an y co m m un ic at io n, rega rd le ss of it s

na tu re or fo rm , in cl ud in g bu t no t li m it ed to ad ve rti si ng , . . . c reat iv e ex pr es si on , [an d] d at a,” whe re “ ad ve rti si ng ” is de fin ed in pa rt a s “ ad ve rti si ng , p ub li ci ty, [an d]

pr es s re le as es or p ro m ot io n o f th e in su red’ s ser vi ces or p ro du ct s . . . .”

W e as su m e wit ho ut de ci di ng th at , as IBC co nt en ds

, Fl owe rs ’s br ead pa ck ag in g is a “ m at te r” un de r th e po li cy an d th at th e tra de m ark ed ph ras e “ Natu re’s Own” co ul d
be us ed as a “ ti tl e” of th e br ead wrap pe rs

. Eve n wit h th es e as su m pt io ns , ho wev er, we ho ld th at ne it he r th e al le ga ti on s i n t he Flo wers Co m pl ai nt no r th e rec or d a s t o fa ct s kn own or reas on ab ly as cert ai na bl e to One Bea co n whe n th e cl ai m was fil ed gi ve ris e
to a cl ai m po te nt ia ll y wit hi n th e po li cy ’s co ve rag e fo r in f r i ng em en t of a ti tl e. Se e Far r v. Far m Bur ea u In s. C o

. o f N eb

. , 61 F.3 d 67 7, 68 2 (8 th Ci r. 19 95 ) (as su m in g wit ho ut de ci di ng th at th e in juri es all eg ed co ns ti tu te d “ ad ve rti si ng in jury” un de r th e
p ol ic y bu t fin di ng th at th e in su ran ce co m pa ni es ha d no du ty to de fen d be cau se th e

reco rd di d no t co nt ai n ev i de nc e to su pp or t th e co nc lu si on th at th e act iv it ie s of th e
pa rti es see ki ng a de fen se co ns ti tu te d t he req ui si te “ ad ve rti si ng ”).

As an in it ia l m at te r, th e la ck of a co un t or al le ga ti on in th e Fl owe rs Co m pl ai nt
th at in cl ud es th e p hr as e “ in fri ng em en t o f a t it le ” is no t fat al to IBC’s ar gu m en t t ha t
th e Fl owe rs Co m

pl ai nt po te nt ia ll y gi ve s ris e to a cl ai m fo r in fri ng em en t of a ti tl e. Se e McCo rma ck

, 98 9 S.W .2d at 17 0. To de te rm in e whe t h e r “ Natu re’s Own” is

po te nt ia ll y a “ ti tl e” un de r th e po li cy , we m us t co ns id er th e m an ne r in whi ch th e ph ras e is al le ge dl y us ed or , to th e ex te nt kn own or re a s o n a b l y as cert ai na bl e to
One Bea co n, act ua ll y us ed

. Se e id

. ; se e al so Ci nc in na ti In s. Co

. v. Zen Des ig n Grp

., Lt d.

, 32 9 F.3 d 54 6, 55 6 (6 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (d et erm in in g whe th er th e rel ev an t ph ras e, as

us ed in act ua l ad ve rti se m en ts , po te nt ia ll y co ns ti tu te d a “ sl og an ” un de r th e in su ran ce
po li cy ). In res po ns e to IBC’s as se rti on th at “ Natu re’s Own” is th e ti tl e of Fl owe rs ’s
br ead wrap pe rs , One Bea co n a rg ue s t ha t “ th ere i s n o ‘Natu re’s Own’ bre ad wrap pe r

-6

-in th e reco rd an d, th eref or e, th ere are no fact s to su pp or t IBC’s arg um en t.” Alt ho ug h
th e br ead wrap pe rs li ke ly wou ld ha ve be en reas on ab ly as cert ai na bl e to One Bea co n, IBC d oe s no t d ire ct us to an y de pi ct io n o r de sc rip ti on of t he wrap pe rs in th e rec or d
th at wou ld al lo w us to de te rm in e whe th er th e ph ras e “ Natu re’s Own” is pr in te d on th e br e a d p a c ka gi ng in a m an ne r th at wou ld m ak e it “ po te nt ia ll y ” qu al ify as a “ ti tl e.”
W it ho ut in fo rm at io n in th e reco rd ab ou t th e co nt en t of wha t was kn own or reas on ab ly

as cert ai na bl e to One Bea co n, we m us t si m pl y rel y on th e Fl owe rs Co m pl ai nt

. IBC

st at es th at th e Fl owe rs Co m pl ai nt “ sp eci fic al ly al le ge s it s us e of ‘N at ur e’s Own’ ‘in

co nn ect io n with [it s] “ pa ck ag ed br ead s[ ,] ”[’]

. . . im pl y in g th at th e wor ds are on th e b r e a d pa ck ag in g.” IBC fu rth er co nt en ds th at “ [t]he reas on ab le in fere nc e fro m Fl owe rs ’[s] as se rti on th at it ‘m ark et s’ it s br ead s ‘und er th e Natu re’s Own tra de m ark ’

. . . is th at Fl owe rs ’[s] m ark et in g m at eri al s are cap ti on ed wit h th e ph ras e (o r na m ed )
‘N at ur e’s Own.’” The qu es ti on is th us ho w m uc h we m ay in fer ab ou t th e po te nt ia l

us e o f th e tr ad em ark on Flo wers ’s pac ka gi ng

.

Alt ho ug h Mi ss ou ri la w fav or s in su red pa rti es by de te rm in in g an in su rer’s du ty

to de fen d b as ed on whet he r cer ta in fact s “ gi ve ris e to a cl ai m po te nt ia ll y wit hi n t he

po li cy ’s co ve rag e,” se e McCo rma ck

, 98 9 S.W .2d at 17 0 (em ph as is ad de d)

, us e of th e

wor d “ po te nt ia ll y ” do es no t ren de r bo un dl es s th e du ty t o de fen d. The li mi t s o f t h e in fere nc es we m ay dr aw fro m fact ua l al le ga ti on s in th e u n d e r l y in g co m pl ai nt are il lu st rat ed in Su

pe ri or Equ ip men t Co

. v. Mar yl an d Ca su al ty Co

. , 98 6 S.W .2d 47 7 (Mo

. Ct

. App

. 19 98 ). Su pe rio r Equ ip m en t Co m pa ny was in su red by m

ul ti pl e po li ci es

an d so ug ht co ve rag e aft er a co m m it te e of po te nt ia ll y res po ns ib le co m pa ni es “ so ug ht

to reco ve r fro m S u p e r i o r th e ‘resp on se co st s’ it ha d in cu rred or wou ld in cu r in th e fu tu re to cl ean up ha zard ou s su bs ta nc es whi ch Su pe rio r a l l e g e dl y tra ns po rte d an d
de po si te d” at a cert ai n lo cat io n. Id

. at 47 9- 80

. The c o mm i t t e e al le ge d in it s

c o m pl ai nt th at “ [r]elea se s whi ch ha ve oc cu rred or are th reat en ed to oc cu r at t h e faci li ty in cl ud e bu t are no t li m it ed to sp il ls fro m bu lk ta nk s, le ak in g dr um s an d ta nk s,

an d ex pl os io ns an d res ul ta nt le ak in g fro m ta nk s.” Id

. at 48 0. So m e of th e in su ran ce
po li ci es pr ov id ed co ve rag e to Su pe rio r fo r si tu at io ns in whi ch it was ob li ga te d to pa y

-7

-fo r pr op ert y da m ag es , bu t th os e po li ci es in cl ud ed an ex cl us io n fo r pr op ert y da m ag e

ari si ng fro m th e di sp ers al or es cap e of po ll ut an ts

. Id

. at 48 1. Howev er, th os e po li ci es

ex cep te d fro m th e ex cl us io n si tu at io ns in whi ch su ch di sp ers al or es cap e is “ su dd en

a n d a cci de nt al .” Id

. The co ur t co nc lu de d th at th e al le ga ti on in th e co m pl ai nt “o f

ex pl os io ns an d res ul ta nt l e a k i n g arg ua bl y fal ls wit hi n th e ‘sud de n an d acci de nt al ’
rel eas es req ui red by the po li ci es .” Id

. at 4 82

.

In co nt ras t, an ot he r po li cy pr ov id ed co ve rag e fo r pr op ert y da m ag es “ cau se d by

an acci de nt an d res ul ti ng fro m th e own ers hi p, m ai nt en an ce or us e of a co ve red au to .”
Id

. at 48 4. The co ur t an al y zed whe th er th e in su ran ce co m pa ny ha d a du ty to de fen d

un de r th is po li cy

as f ol lo ws:

Nowh ere in th e co m

pl ai nt in th e u nd erl y in g fe de ral act io n i s th ere an y al le ga ti on th at t h e c o nt am in at io n res ul te d fro m th e own ers hi p,

m ai nt en an ce or us e of a co ve red au to

. The re are n o a l l eg at io ns th e rel eas es were cau se d by an y pa rti cu la r feat ur e, m al fu nc ti on or im pr op er op erat io n of Su pe rio r’s bu si ne ss au to m ob il es

. Alt ho ug h w e r ead th e fed eral c o mp l a i nt br oa dl y , th ere are no fact s al le ge d whi ch are wit hi n th e co ve rag e o f [t he po li cy in qu es ti on .]

Id

. In ot he r wor ds

, de sp it e th e fact th at Su pe rio r’s bu si ne ss was th e tr an sp or t of

was te to th e si te , at le as t m ak in g it co nc ei va bl e th at th e ve hi cl es Su pe rio r pr es um ab ly

us ed to de li ve r ha zard ou s su bs ta nc es to th e si te were in so m e way res po ns ib le fo r th e rel eas e of th os e su bs ta nc es at th e si te , th e la ck of an y al le ga ti on rel at ed to Su pe rio r’s
bu si ne ss au to m ob il es de feat ed Su pe rio r’s cl ai m for a de fen se un de r th at po li cy

.

As wit h th e la tt er in su ran ce po li cy in Su pe ri or Equ ip men t , a fin di ng th at
One Bea co n ha s a du ty to de fen d IBC fo r in fri ng em en t of a ti tl e ba se d on al le ga ti on s in th e Fl owe rs Co m

pl ai nt wou ld req ui re an un acce pt ab le de gr ee of im ag in at io n. W e
tru st th at es se nt ia ll y al l co m pa ni es wit h a tra de m ark affi li at ed wit h cert ai n pro du ct s

m ark et th os e pr od uc ts “ un de r” th e tra de mar k in th e se ns e th at th e tra de m ark is
in cl ud ed on th e pr od uc t’s pa ck ag in g. W he th er th e tra de m ark is fe a t u r e d on a
-8

-pr od uc t’s p ack ag in g i n a way th at all ows it to ser ve as t he “ cap ti on or nam e” of t he

pa ck ag in g is

, ho wev er, a di ffer en t qu es ti on

. The m ere ap pe aran ce of th e tra de m ark ed ph ras e on th e pa ck ag in g do es no t al lo w us to as su m e t h a t i t i s be in g us ed as th e

“ he ad in g” or “ di st in ct iv e de si gn at io n” of th e wrap pe r. Se e Mer ri am- W eb st er ’s at
18 4, 82 3. Aga in

, wit ho ut in fo rm at io n in th e reco rd ab ou t Fl owe rs ’s br ead wrap pe rs , whi ch were arg ua bl y

reas on ab ly ascer ta in ab le to One Bea co n, we can no t de te rm in e whe th er th e co nt en t of th e wrap pe r sh owe d th at th e tra de m ark “ Natu re’s Own”

po te nt ia ll y qu al ifi es as a t i t l e

. A s to th e Fl owe rs Co m pl ai nt , we co nc lu de th at
Fl owe rs ’s cl ai m th at it mar ket s it s br e a d p ro du ct s un de r th e m ark “ Natu re’s Own”
do es no t su ffi ci en tl y al le ge th at “ Natu re’s Own” is th e ti tl e of th e pa ck ag in g

. S e e Pen n- St ar , 3 06 S.W .3d at 59 9 (b arri ng co ur ts fro m “ read in g in to [a co m pl ai nt ] an y fact ua l as su m

pt io ns ”). Thu s, it do es no t gi ve r i s e t o a cl ai m po te nt ia ll y wit hi n th e
po li cy ’s cov erag e fo r ti tl e in fri ng em en t. 4

B. In fri ng ement of

a Sl og an

IBC ne xt co nt en ds th at th e fact s al le ge d in th e F l o w e r s C om pl ai nt , in

co nju nc ti on wit h th e fact s th at One Bea co n kn ew or reas on ab ly co ul d ha ve di sc ov ered

, gi ve ris e to a c l a i m po te nt ia ll y wit hi n th e po li cy ’s co ve rag e fo r cl ai m s ari si ng fro m in fri ng em en t of a sl og an

. The pa rti es di sp ut e th e m ean in g of “ sl og an ,”
whi ch is le ft un de fin ed by th e po li cy

. Pri m ari ly rel y in g on Hug o Bos s Fas hi on s, In c.

v. Fed er al In su ra nc e Co

. , 25 2 F.3 d 60 8 (2 d Ci r. 20 01 ), One Bea co n co nt en ds th at th e ph ras e “ Natu re’s Own” is no t a sl og an be cau se a tra de m ark ed na m e of a p r o d u c t

can no t si m

ul ta ne ou sl y qu al ify as a sl og an

. IBC, ho wev er, op po se s th is as se rti on an d

To th e ex te nt IBC arg ue s th at “ Natu re’s Own” is a “ ti tl e” be cau se i t i s t h e 4

na m e of Fl owe rs ’s br ead pr od uc ts , we reject th is arg um en t be cau se br ead is no t a

“ m at te r” as de fin ed by the po li cy be cau se it is no t a “ co m

m un ic at io n.” And for th e

reas on s di sc us se d in th e ne xt se ct io n, we al so reject IBC’s ar gu m en t t ha t “ Natu re’s Own” i s a “ ti tl e” be cau se it is “ a pr om ot er of th e pr od uc t’s be ne fic ia l ‘nat ur al ’
qu al it ie s.”

-9

-arg ue s th at we sh ou ld lo ok to a di ct io na ry fo r th e m ean in g of “ sl og an .” Two

ap pl ic ab le di ct io na ry d e f i n i t i o n s of “ sl og an ” are: (1 ) “ a wor d or ph ras e us ed to

ex pr es s a ch arac te ris ti c po si ti on or s t an d or a go al to be ach ie ve d” an d (2 ) “ a br ie f

at te nt io n- ge tt in g ph ras e us ed in ad ve rti s i n g o r pr om ot io n.” Mer ri am- W eb st er ’s at
11 74

. Eve n as su m in g fo r pu rp os es of arg um en t th at “ Natu re’s Own” qu al ifi es as a

“ sl og an ” un de r th e po li cy if it m eet s ei t h e r o f th es e di ct io na ry de fin it io ns , we ho ld
th at th e d ut y

to de fen d n ev ert he le ss ha s n ot be en tri gg ered

.

To de te rm in e whe th er “ Natu re’s Own” po te nt ia ll y qu al ifi es as a sl og an un de r ei th er of th e de fin it io ns st at ed ab ov e, we ag ai n ex am in e th e al le ga ti on s in th e Fl owe rs Co m pl ai nt an d fac t s i n th e reco rd reg ard in g wha t One Bea co n kn ew or co ul d ha ve

reas on ab ly as cert ai ne d ab ou t Fl owe rs ’s act ua l us e of th e wor ds “ Natu re’s Own.” Se e Ci nc in na ti In s. Co

. , 32 9 F.3 d at 55 6 (“ [W] e m us t de te rm in e whe th er th e ph ras e ‘T he
W eara bl e Lig ht ,’ as us ed in ASP’s [(t he pl ai nt iff in th e u n d erl y in g su it )]
ad ve rti se m en ts , po te nt ia ll y co ns ti tu te s a sl og an su ch th at [th e in su red ’s] al le ge d
in fri ng em en t in vo ke s [th e in su rer’s] du ty to de fen d.” ). Neit he r th e al le ga ti on s in th e Fl owe rs Co m

pl ai nt no r th e fact s IBC di rect s us to in th e reco rd su gg es t th at Fl owe rs

us es th e ph ras e “ Natu re’s Own” to m ark et it s pr od uc ts in ei th er of the way s defi ne d
i n t h e di ct io na ry

. Se e Cu st om Har dw ar e , 29 5 S.W .3d at 56 2 & n.6 (n ot in g th a t

ne it he r pa rty “ po in ts to an y fact s th at were ei th er kn own to th e [in su rer] or th at were

as cert ai na bl e th ro ug h reas on ab le in ve st ig at io n at th e co m men c e ment of th e

un de rlyin g s ui t t ha t m ay

ha ve crea te d a du ty to d efen d” ).

Alt ho ug h IBC su rm is es th at th e wor d “ na tu re” in “ Natu re’s Own” sh ows th at
Fl owe rs in te nd s to t o u t th at it s br ead s “ co nt ai n[ ] ‘nat ur al ’ rat he r th an art ifi ci al
in gr ed ie nt s,” th ere are no al le ga ti on s in th e Fl owe rs Co m pl ai nt th at Fl owe rs act ua ll y ha s “ a ch arac te ris ti c po si ti on or st an d or a g oa l t o b e ach ie ve d” th at is ex pr es se d by
th e te rm “ Natu re’s Own.” Mo reo ve r, th ere is no th in g to in di cat e th e ex te nt to whi ch
Fl owe rs pr od uc es or cl ai m s to pr od uc e “ na tu ral ” br ead pr od uc ts , ho wev er th at m ig ht
be de fin ed

. Si m il arl y , IBC fai ls to id en ti fy an y th in g i n t h e r e co rd in di cat in g th at

-1 0-Fl owe rs cl ai m s to us e or act ua ll y us es “ Natu re’s Own” as “ a br ie f at te nt io n- ge tt in g

ph ras e us ed in ad ve rti si ng or pr om ot io n,” rat he r th an as a si m pl e pr od uc t id en ti fie r. Onc e ag ai n, w h i l e i t i s co nc ei va bl e th at “ Natu re’s Own” co ul d se rv e as a sl og an in
Fl owe rs ’s m ark et in g effo rts fo r a li ne of n a tu ral br ead pr od uc ts , th e la ck of an y
sp eci fic al le ga ti on rel at in g to su ch a us e, al on g wit h IBC’s fai lu re to id en ti fy an y in st an ce of su ch a us e th at wou ld ha ve be en read il y as cert ai na bl e by On eBe aco n at
th e ti m e th e cl ai m

was fi le d, d efea ts IBC’s cl ai m for a de fen se un de r th e p ol ic y

. 5

II I. CONCLUSI ON

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of IBC’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t an d e nt ry of ju dg m en t i n fa vo r of

OneB eaco n.

SMI TH, Circ ui t J ud ge , di ss en ti ng

.

I res pe ct fu ll y di ss en t fro m th e co ur t's ho ld in g th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in co nc lu di ng th at IBC's po li cy wit h One Bea co n di d no t gi ve ris e to a du ty to de fen d
IBC i n i ts li ti ga ti on wit h F lo wers

.

Fl owe rs fil ed su it ag ai ns t IBC fo r tra de m ark in fri ng em en t of its "N at ur e' s O w n"

tra de m ark

. Fl owe rs wil l li ke ly pu rs ue it s su it ag ai ns t IBC— if it ha s no t al read y —fo r
tra de m ark in fri ng em en t an d no t in fri ng em en t of a ti tl e or sl og an

. IBC's po li cy wit h
One Bea co n ex pr es sl y di sc la im s co ve rag e of al le ge d tra de m ark in fri ng em en t. Des pi te
th is , I BC as ke d One Bea co n to de fen d it in it s su it ag ai ns t Fl owe rs . Th us , t hi s co ur t

m us t de te rm in e, fo r pu rp os es of a du ty to de fen d un de r Mi ss ou ri la w, whe th er th e

In li gh t of ou r ab ov e ho ld in gs , IBC’s ad di ti on al cl ai m fo r co ve rag e un de r th e 5

po li cy ’s pr ov is io n co ve rin g cl ai m s ari si ng fro m “ un fai r co m petit ion an d cl ai m s un de r Se c t io n 43 (a) of th e Lan ha m Act or si m il ar st at e st at ut es ” whe n th os e cl ai m s are al le ge d wit h a cau se of act io n fo r in fri ng em en t of a ti tl e or a sl og an ne ces sa ril y fai ls

.

-1 1-Fl owe rs su it im pl ic at es co ve rag e un de r IBC's po li cy wit h One Bea co n. To an swe r th at

qu es ti on , Mi ss ou ri la w in st ru ct s us to lo ok at th e al le ga ti on s an d fact s pl ead ed in th e

co m pl ai nt to de te rm in e whe th er th ere is a po ss ib il it y th at th e co m

pl ai nt imp l i c a te s

co ve rag e un de r IBC's po li cy wit h One Bea co n. McCo rma ck Bar on Mgmt

. Se rv ., In c.

v. Am. Gua r. & Li ab

. In s. Co

. , 98 9 S.W .2d 16 8, 17 0 (Mo

. 19 99 ) ("Th e du ty to de fen d
ari se s whe ne ve r th ere is a po te nt ia l or po ss ib le li ab il it y to pa y ba se d on th e fact s at
th e ou ts et of th e cas e an d i s n ot de pe nd an t o n t he pro ba bl e li ab il it y to pa y ba se d on
th e fact s as cert ai ne d th ro u g h t r i al ." (q uo ta ti on an d ci ta ti on om it te d) ). "If th e

co m pl ai nt m erel y al le ge s fact s th at gi ve ris e to a cl ai m po te nt ia ll y wit hi n th e po li cy 's

co ve rag e, th e in su rer ha s a du ty t o de fen d." Id

. at 17 0– 71 . I n ot he r wor ds , h e re, we

m us t de te rm in e whe th er Fl owe rs ' co m pl ai nt al le ge s fact s gi vi ng ris in g to a "p ot en ti al

o r p os si bl e" ti tl e or sl og an in fri ng em en t cl ai m

. "To ex tri cat e it se lf fro m a du ty t o de fen d th e in su red

, th e in su ran ce co m pa ny m us t pr ov e th at th ere is no po ss ib il it y of

co ve rag e." St ar k Li qu id

at io n Co

. v. Flo ri st

s' Mut

. In s. Co

. , 24 3 S.W .3d 38 5, 39 2 (Mo

. Ct . App . 20 07 ) (q uo ta ti on an d c it at io n o m it te d)

.

Afte r rev ie win g th e po li cy , an d th e fact s al le ge d i n F l o wers ' co m pl ai nt , I
be li ev e th at it im

pl ic at es IBC's po li cy wit h One Bea co n fo r in fri ng em en t of a ti tl e or sl og an

. Alt ho ug h Fl owe rs m ay no t ha ve al le ge d ti tl e or sl og an in fri ng em en t ag ai ns t IBC, n ot hi ng pre cl ud ed it fro m do in g s o i n t he fu tu re. In fact

, wit ho ut ch an gi ng th e fact s al le ge d in th e co m

pl ai nt , F lo wers co ul d si m pl y as s e r t se pa rat e co un ts fo r ti tl e

an d s l o g a n in fri ng em en t, cl ai m in g th at "Nat ur e's Own" is a ti tl e or a sl og an

. The se
sp e c i fic al le ga ti on s of ti tl e an d sl og an in fri ng em en t wou ld un do ub te dl y in vo ke
One Bea co n's du ty to de fen d IB C

. B e c a u se Fl owe rs co ul d as se rt a ti tl e an d sl og an in fri ng em en t cl ai m wit ho ut ad di ng an y ad di ti on al fact s. In m y vi ew, th e fact ua l ba si s of Fl owe rs ' co m

pl ai nt im pl ic at es IBC's po li cy wit h One Bea co n— req ui rin g a du ty to
de fen d.

In m y vi ew, "t he q u e s t io n is no t whe th er [Fl owe rs ] st at ed a cl ai m fo r rel ie f

su ffi ci en t to su rv iv e a m ot io n to di sm is s. Rat he r, th e qu es ti on is : Did th e or ig in al an d

-1 2-F i r s t Am en de d pe ti ti on s st at e en ou gh to po te nt ia ll y or po ss ib ly es ta bl is h co ve ra g e

un de r th e po li cy , th ereb y tri gg eri ng [On eBe aco n's ] du ty to d e f e nd ? " Tr uc ks In s. Ex ch an ge v. Pra ir ie Fra min g, LLC
, 16 2 S.W .3d 64
, 83 (Mo

. Ct

. App

. 20 0 5 )

. "M is so ur i la w su gg es ts th at as lo ng as th e p e t i t io n de m on st rat es th e po te nt ia l or

po ss ib le st at em en t of a cl ai m wit hi n in su ran ce co ve rag e, ev en if in art fu ll y dr aft ed

, it
tri gg ers th e in su rer's du ty to d efen d." Id

. (em ph as is ad de d)

.

Here, un li ke in Su

pe ri or Equ ip men t Co

. v. Mar yl an d Ca su al ty Co
, Fl owe rs ha s al le ge d th at IBC in fri ng ed it s us e of a ph ras e, "Nat ur e's Own." 98 6 S.W .2d 47 7 (Mo

. Ct

. App

. 19 98 ). Und er th e am bi gu ou s de fin it io ns of One Bea co n's po li cy of "t it le " an d
"s lo ga n," "Nat ur e's Own" "p ot en ti al [ly] or po ss ib l[l y ]" ga ve ris e to a cl ai m un de r IBC's po li cy wit h One Bea co n. Se e McCo rma ck Bar on Mgmt

. Se rv ., In c. , 98 9 S.W .2d

at 17 0. The m ajor it y ack no wled ge s th at IBC's ti tl e in fri ng em en t a r g u m en t is
"co nc ei va bl e" no twi th st an di ng One Bea co n's as se rti on th at "t he re is no po ss ib il it y of

co ve rag e." St ar k Li qu id

at io n Co

. , 24 3 S.W .3d at 392 (q uotat io n an d ci ta ti on om it te d)

.

Acco rd in gl y , I co nc lu de th at th e d i s t r i ct co ur t erre d by gr an ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t to One Bea co n. As a res ul t, I wou ld rem an d th e cas e to th e di st ric t co ur t fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 3-