Tom Kelley Studios, Inc. v. State Farm General Insurance

MEMORANDUM

Because the Nova complaint alleged that conduct constituting “advertising injury” was “committed in the course of advertising [Tom Kelley Studios’s] goods, products or services,” the complaint stated claims potentially covered by Tom Kelley Studios’s (Kelley) policy. Consequently, State Farm had a duty to defend Kelley against Nova’s suit. See Montrose Chem. Corp. v. Superior Court, 6 Cal.4th 287 , 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 467 , 861 P.2d 1153, 1157 (1993).

The Nova complaint alleged trademark and trade dress infringement, which under California law constitute the advertising injury of “misappropriation of advertising ideas or style of doing business” under Kelley’s policy. See Dogloo, Inc. v. N. Ins. Co. of N.Y., 907 F.Supp. 1383, 1390 (C.D.Cal.1995); Lebas Fashion Imps. of USA, Inc. v. ITT Hartford Ins. Grp., 50 Cal.App.4th 548 , 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 36, 46 (1996). Further, the advertising injuries alleged in the Nova complaint were “committed in the course of advertis ing [Kelley’s] goods, products or services.” Adler Fels’s (Adler) advertisements, such as its website featuring the allegedly infringing wine label, constituted a course of advertising for Kelley’s goods, products or…