Affirming on narrower grounds the rulings of Judge Weinstein, 751 F. Supp. 2d 444 and 777 F. Supp. 2d 454, the court determined that the coverage for infringement of title was implicated requiring a defense. "[T]here was nonetheless, at the time of the filing of the Underlying Action, sufficient uncertainty about the scope of coverage to trigger Charter's duty to defend. Its failure to defend therefore breached the Policy. To the extent Charter believed that the Underlying Action did not allege an infringement of title and was therefore not covered by the Policy, its remedy was to begin to defend CGS and immediately seek a declaratory judgment as to the meaning of ‘title.' See Hugo Boss, 252 F.3d at 622-23." Id. at 81.