Travelers brought a declaratory judgment so that it wouldn’t
have to defend Sterling in underlying litigation; it lost. Sterling is a small import/export company
that supplies, among other things, OTC medical supplies such as blood glucose
monitoring strips. The underlying litigation brought by J&J alleges a
scheme involving a number of co-conspirators who acquired genuine OneTouch
blood glucose test strips manufactured for sale in foreign markets, removed the
original foreign-language labels, repackaged the products with English-language
labels bearing counterfeit lot numbers and expiration dates, and then imported
them into the United States. Sterling
and its principal Littman weren’t named as active coconspirators, but the
complaint describes Sterling as a financial middleman, partnering with another
distributor to import the test strips from South Africa. There was no express allegation that Sterling
knew that the strips were repackaged or otherwise counterfeit. J&J sued Sterling and Littman for infringement,
dilution, and related claims, including §43(a)(1)(B) false advertising.
Sterling’s policy defined “advertising injury” to include “Infringement
of copyright, title or slogan.” The
analysis looks at the four corners of the policy and the four corners of the
underlying complaint. If coverage is in
doubt, the insurer must defend. The nature
of the conduct alleged trumps the form of the action pleaded.
The underlying complaint alleged that genuine test strips
had their labels removed and replaced with counterfeit labels, then were repackaged
in counterfeit boxes, using a number of J&J registered trademarks. Sterling
allegedly was part of buying over 20,000 boxes of the strips over an
eight-month period that were then sold to wholesalers. The complaint alleged generally that the
defendants, including Sterling, used J&J’s marks in commercial advertising
or promotion. This fell within the scope
of “infringement of copyright, title, or slogan.” In the only state court decision on point, a
Virginia circuit court considering identical language found the phrase broad
enough to encompass trademark infringement.
Plus, though the only detailed description of the packaging at issue was
a list of registered marks, a trademark may in some circumstances also
constitute a slogan. “The two terms--slogan
and trademark--are neither coextensive nor mutually exclusive, and they may
sometimes overlap.” Plus, it was clear
from the allegations of the underlying complaint that the counterfeit packaging
at issue was modeled directly on genuine packaging. “Notwithstanding the LifeScan complaint’s
limited description of the contents of the counterfeit packaging, it is
reasonable to infer that this counterfeit packaging also included any slogans
or copyrighted material that may have been displayed on the genuine article.”
That hurdle jumped, the next question was whether the “advertising
injury” arose from an “offense committed in the course of advertising [the
policyholder’s] goods, products or services.” “Advertising” is an unambiguous
term with a natural and ordinary meaning in the business world: “the widespread
promotion of goods or services to the public at large, or to the company’s
customer base.” A prior case held that allegations
of the sale of infringing items, without allegation of any facts about
advertising or promotion, didn’t allege “advertising” for these purposes. Likewise, solicitation of a formal written
proposal tailored to a single customer isn’t “advertising.” However, where a promotional communication is
addressed to a small audience that nonetheless comprises all or a significant
number of the speaker’s client base, that’s advertising.
The underlying complaint didn’t specifically allege
advertising activity by Sterling, but it did allege a partnership in which
Sterling contributed its importing expertise and contacts to the importation
and sale of over 20,000 boxes, which were sold to at least four wholesale
distributors. The complaint didn’t
detail promotional activities, but “expressly, albeit summarily, alleges that
the … defendants, including Sterling Wholesale and Littman, engaged ‘in
commercial advertising or promotion.’” There was nothing in the underlying complaint
to suggest that Sterling’s sales to multiple customers were obtained
exclusively by direct, one-by-one solicitation, nor that these distributors did
not constitute a significant portion of the joint venture’s customer base.
Thus, the alleged conduct was potentially an offense committed in the course of
advertising.
Finally, coverage requires that the insured’s advertising
activities cause the injury alleged, not merely expose it. A patent infringement claim doesn’t trigger
coverage even though the insured advertises the infringing product if the infringement
claim is based on sale or importation rather than advertisement. But here, the underlying complaint explicitly
alleged commercial advertising activity, and the facts alleged implicated
potential advertising activity by Sterling in promoting the sale of counterfeit
products to multiple distributors. “[L]ogic
compels the conclusion that these alleged advertising activities are, at a
minimum, the potential cause of injury” to J&J.
No comments:
Post a Comment