Court Opinion

ID: 9695535
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:21:57.317472+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:13.991297
License: Public Domain

GILDEA, Justice
(concurring).
I join in the majority’s conclusion that coverage exists under both the CGL and the CUL policies. I write separately because I disagree with the way in which the majority reaches its conclusion that there is coverage under the CGL policy.
The CGL policy provides for coverage in the event of an “advertising injury.” The policy defines advertising injury to mean “injury arising out of one or more of the following offenses: ... c. Misappropriation of advertising ideas ...; or d. Infringement of copyright, title or slogan.” The majority finds coverage under the provision for “[infringement of ... title.” I agree with the dissent’s analysis of this provision and would not find coverage under it.
But in my view there is coverage under the “misappropriation of advertising ideas” provision. This provision requires that we consider the terms “misappropriation” and “advertising ideas.” Turning to “misappropriation,” the term is not ambiguous in my view. “Misappropriation” is “understood as the unlawful taking or use of another person’s property.” Sport Supply Group, Inc. v. Columbia Cas. Co., 335 F.3d 453, 461-62 (5th Cir.2003) (citing Webster’s Third New Int’l Dictionary 1442 (1993) and Black’s Law Dictionary 998 (6th ed.1990)). The wrongful use of Tolkien’s property — the HOBBIT mark — is precisely the issue raised in Tolkien’s Complaint.
Turning next to “advertising idea,” I agree with the majority’s conclusion that simply because HOBBIT is a trademark does not mean that it is not an “advertising idea.” State Auto Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 343 F.3d 249, 257-58 (4th Cir.2003) (noting that a trademark “serves as a prime instrument in the advertisement and sale of the seller’s goods.” (citing 1 J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair *581Competition § 3:2 (4th ed.2003))). Indeed, as the majority notes, the Complaint specifically alleges that Tolkien has used, and licensed others to use, the HOBBIT mark in the promotion of other products.
Because the Complaint alleges an “advertising injury,” that Hobbit Travel has misappropriated Tolkien’s advertising idea, I would hold that there is coverage under the CGL policy.