N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
KEATING DENTAL AR TS, INC ., a C a l ifornia C orporation, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. HAR TFORD C ASUALTY INSUR ANC E C OM PANY; SENTINEL INSUR A NC E C OM PANY, LTD., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-56775 D.C . No. 8:13-c v-00419-DOC -AN M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Dav id O. C arte r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d De c e m

be r 10, 2015 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : REINHAR

DT, LUC ER O, ** and NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s. 

# FIL ED D EC 24 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble C arlos F. Luc e ro, C irc uit Judgefor the U.S. C ourt of Appe a ls for the Te n th C i rc uit, sitting by de signa tion.Ke a ting De nta l Arts (“ Ke ating” ) a ppe a ls the distric t c o urt’ s e ntry of sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of Ha rtford C a sua lty

Insura nc e C om p a ny (“ Hartford” ) and Se ntine l Insura

n c e C om pa ny , Ltd. (“ Se n tine l” ). Exe rc ising jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, wea ffirm . The distric t c ourt he ld tha t a lia bility polic y issue d by Ha rtford to Ke ating e xc use d Ha

rtford from

de fe n ding Ke ating in a

n unde rly ing la

wsuit. W e re vie w de novo the inte rpre tation of theinsura nc e polic y and m a

k e an “ inde p e n de n t de te rm i nation of them e aning of there le va nt c ontra c t

la ngua ge .” C one stoga

Se rvs. C orp. v. Exe c . R isk Inde m ., Inc ., 312 F.3d 976, 981 (9th C ir. 2002). At the tim e of the unde rly ing suit, Ke ating wa s insure d unde r a ge ne ra l lia bility polic y from Ha rtford. The polic y provide d lia bility c ove ra ge for “ pe rsona l and a dve rtising injury

” arising out of “

public ation of m ate ria l tha t . . . dispa

ra ge s a pe rson’ s or orga

n iz ation’ s goods, produc ts, or se rvic e s.” Howe ve r, the polic y did

“ not a pply to . . . [p] e rsona l a

nd a dve rtising injur[ie s] . . . [a ] rising out of a ny viola tion of a ny inte lle c tua l prope rty

rights suc h a s c opy

right, pa t e nt, tra de m ark, tra de nam e , tra de se c re t, se rvic e m ark or othe r de signa tion of origin or a uthe ntic ity ” (the “ IP e xc lusion” ). In the unde rly ing la

wsuit, a ll of the sta

te d c la im s a ga inst Ke ating a re ba se d on tra de m ark infringe m e nt, a nd a ll of the fa c tua l a l le gations in the c om p la int tra c k -2-the e le m e nts of a tra de m ark c la im . Ke at ing a rgue s tha t the fa c ts a lle ge d a

re a lso suffic i e nt to support a

n im plie d dispa

ra ge m e n t c la i m . Assum ing, but not de c iding, that the unde rly ing c om

pla int supports a

n im plie d dispa

ra ge m e nt c la im , a

ny suc h c la im none t he le ss a rise s out of pote ntia l c onsum e r c onfusion c a use d by the a lle ge d tra de m a rk viola tion. Se e , e . g., Indust. Inde m . C o. v. AppleC om pute r, Inc ., 79 C a l.App.4th 817, 833 (1999). C onstruing the polic y c ove ra ge e x c lusion na rrowly , M a c Kinnon v. Truc k Ins. Exc ha nge , 73 P.3d 1205, 1213 (C a l. 2003), we hold the IP e xc lusion e xe m

pts Ha rtford from

de fe nding a ga inst suc h c la im s. The judge m e nt of the distric t c ourt is AFFIRM E D .

-3-