Opinion ID: 899621
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Infringement of Slogan

Text: We first consider whether the FF stitching could be considered a “slogan.” Our decision in Hugo Boss provides the framework for analysis, and indeed gives authoritative guidance as to the meaning of the term. “[W]e begin with the terms of the [Policy] itself to see if the intent of the parties can be gleaned without resort to extrinsic evidence.” Hugo Boss, 252 F.3d at 617. Here, as in Hugo Boss, the Policy fails to define “slogan” or to provide criteria for 7 distinguishing slogans from non-slogans. Thus, the language of the Policy itself “is of no aid to us in deciding whether [the FF stitching] qualifies as a . . . slogan within the meaning of the contract” of insurance. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Next, we ask whether a body of law or an established custom fills in the gaps left by the drafters. We concluded in Hugo Boss that New York state law did not provide significant insight into the meaning of “slogan,” or any clear way to distinguish between slogans and non-slogans. That is still the case; the parties cite, and we have found, no New York case law subsequent to Hugo Boss that provides further guidance on this issue. Nor is there an established industry usage that gives meaning to the term “slogan.” Id. at 618. As we did in Hugo Boss, however, we may still find a policy term unambiguous where we can determine that it has a clear meaning in federal law. “[C]ontracting parties operate against the backdrop not only of state law, but of federal law as well.” Id. (emphasis in original). Thus, “where contracting parties use terms and concepts that are firmly rooted in federal law, and where there are no explicit signals to the contrary, we can presume that the prevailing federal definition controls.” Id. In assessing whether there is such a “prevailing federal definition,” we consider not whether there is complete unanimity among the courts that have addressed the question, but rather whether there is an “overwhelming current of judicial opinion,” that is, a meaning used by “the vast majority of federal courts.” Id. at 619 & n.8. In 2001, Hugo Boss found that the vast 8 majority of federal courts had defined “slogans”4 as “phrases used to promote or advertise a house mark or product mark, in contradistinction to the house or product mark itself.” Id. at 618 (emphases altered).5 This was still true in 2009, when CGS purchased the Policy. See Citizens Ins. Co. of Am. v. Uncommon, LLC, 812 F. Supp. 2d 905, 913 (N.D. Ill. 2011) (adopting Hugo Boss definition of slogan, and holding that “slogan” had acquired an unambiguous meaning by 2009). We therefore conclude that the Hugo Boss definition of “slogan” remains controlling today. 4 CGS argues that Hugo Boss does not govern our inquiry because it analyzed “trademarked slogan,” not “slogan,” and the majority relied on that invocation of federal trademark law to determine that the federal definition of “slogan” controlled. While the policy at issue in Hugo Boss referred to “trademarked or service marked titles or slogans,” 252 F.3d at 616, and CGS’s policy refers merely to “slogan[s],” the distinction does not make a difference. Hugo Boss and the federal cases it cited analyzed the definition of “slogan” itself, not “trademarked slogan.” See id. at 619-20 (citing cases). A “trademarked slogan” is nothing more or less than a “slogan” that has been trademarked. 5 Since Hugo Boss, other cases have adopted similar definitions of slogan. See Interstate Bakeries Corp. v. OneBeacon Ins. Co., 686 F.3d 539, 546 (8th Cir. 2012) (“Two applicable dictionary definitions of ‘slogan’ are: (1) a word or phrase used to express a characteristic position or stand or a goal to be achieved and (2) a brief attention-getting phrase used in advertising or promotion.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Zen Design Grp., Ltd., 329 F.3d 546, 556 & n.10 (6th Cir. 2003) (defining slogan as “a distinctive cry, phrase, or motto of any party, group, manufacturer, or person; catchword or catch phrase”; “A brief attention-getting phrase used in advertising or promotion”; “[A] phrase used repeatedly, as in promotion”; and “phrases used to promote or advertise a house mark or product mark, in contradistinction to the house or product mark itself” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Ultra Coachbuilders, Inc. v. Gen. Sec. Ins. Co., No. 02 Civ. 675, 2002 WL 31528474, at  (S.D.N.Y. July 15, 2002) (holding that a slogan is an “attentiongetting phrase” or a “phrase used to promote or advertise a house mark or product mark” (emphases omitted)). 9 To hold that the stitching design on a jeans pocket is a “slogan” would stretch that definition beyond recognition, as the design is clearly not a “phrase.” In Hugo Boss we rejected the notion that “the trademarked name of a brand, product, or company” constituted a trademarked slogan, and found it “clear that a ‘slogan’ must be something[] other than the house mark or product mark itself.” 252 F.3d at 619 (emphases omitted). It follows that the FF stitching, which is also not a “phrase” and which in effect is a “house mark or product mark,” is not a slogan either. “In light of this federal authority confirming this definition . . . and given the presumption that, unless they expressly indicate otherwise, contracting parties will be deemed to have incorporated into their agreements usages of key terms that are well-established in the case law or industry, we find no ambiguity sufficient to give rise to contra proferentem in this contract.” Id. at 620. Although we found the mark at issue in Hugo Boss so unambiguously not a slogan to defeat the duty to indemnify, in that case we also concluded that, because “under New York law, the insurer’s duty to furnish a defense is broader than its obligation to indemnify,” id. at 620 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), sufficient uncertainty still remained about “whether [the meaning of] the term [‘trademarked slogan’] was clear enough to avoid contra proferentem,” id. at 622, to impose on the insurer a duty to defend the action.6 Here, however, there is no such residual ambiguity. 6