explaining that the tort provided “an equitable remedy against the wrongful exploita- tion of trade names and common law trademarks that were not otherwise entitled to legal protection” and that the expansion 1702 SYBERSOUND RECORDS v. UAV CORP. of unfair competition law is primarily based in statutes
How later courts described this case
- explaining that the tort provided “an equitable remedy against the wrongful exploita- tion of trade names and common law trademarks that were not otherwise entitled to legal protection” and that the expansion 1702 SYBERSOUND RECORDS v. UAV CORP. of unfair competition law is primarily based in statutes
- explaining that the tort provided “an equitable remedy against the wrongful exploitation of trade names and common law trademarks that were not otherwise entitled to legal protection” and that the expansion of unfair competition law is primarily based in statutes
- holding that an insured’s payments for violations of the state Unfair Business Practices Act, Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code § 17203, are not insurable “damages” under the insured’s advertising injury insurance policies
- stating that a term is generally considered to be ambiguous if two reasonable yet differing definitions can be applied
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Disagreed with by FileNet Corp. v. Chubb Corp., 324 N.J. Super. 476 (1997)
We disagree with FileNet's suggestion that the Bank of the West analysis of the "arising out of" element independently supports a finding of coverage here.
The opinion
MOSK, J.
I concur in the majority opinion insofar as it holds that disgorgement of sums obtained in violation of section 17203 of the Business and Professions Code is not “damages” for “advertising injury” caused by “unfair competition” under the policy. In my view, the opinion should conclude with the statement of this principle and its application to the facts of the case.
Discussion of the second point made by the majority, that there must be a causal connection between “advertising injury” and “advertising activities,” and that such a connection was not established, is entirely unnecessary to the opinion. I express no view as to its validity.
Kennard, J., concurred.