Court Opinion

ID: 9765228
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:56:51.041677+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:06.730847
License: Public Domain

Andree Layton Roaf, Judge, dissenting. I agree with the majority and the concurring judge that the absence of the insurance policy from the record does not prevent us from reaching the merits of this case. We have in the record, and properly abstracted, everything the trial judge had before him when he determined that summary judgment should be granted to B & L Products, Inc. The issue is thus whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment based on the information available to him at the time. I do not believe that he did, and would reverse and remand for entry of summary judgment in favor of the appellant, Tri-State Insurance Company. It is abundandy clear that B & L Products was being sued for copyright infringement — the willful appropriation of the product design of Geographies, Inc. Had the object allegedly copied by B & L Products been a device rather than a notepad, the action against it would have been for patent infringement rather' than copyright infringement. In the context of the litigation against B & L Products, the two terms are thus synonymous, and the act complained of clearly falls outside the definition of “advertising injury.” The trial court, in granting summary judgment, found that “the infringing activities of B & L Products, Inc., arose out of advertising activities of B & L Products.” This is certainly not correct, for advertising did not and could not cause this copyright infringement. The injury to Geographies arose from the sales of products bearing its copyrighted designs, however, those products might have found their way onto the shelves of the Office Max stores. Consequently, it is irrelevant how advertising is defined, for it is not an advertising offense that is complained of. Moreover, although I agree that the term advertising should be construed broadly and given its plain, ordinary and popular meaning, this is precisely what the trial court failed to do. See, e.g., Columbia Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Coger, 3 Ark. App. 85, 811 S.W.2d 345 (1991). Here, the offense complained of was not committed in the course of advertising B & L Product’s goods, products or services, it was committed when the goods were manufactured. I cannot read the language setting forth as a covered offense, the “[infringement of copyright, title or slogan,” to extend beyond an advertising campaign or scheme to the product itself. For the foregoing reasons, I would reverse and remand for entry of summary judgment in favor of Tri-State Insurance Company.