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.

Characterizing the action is limited to antitrust claims. The court determined that they did not implicate potential coverage, relying on the analysis of Rose Acre Farms, Inc. v. Columbia Cas. Co., 662 F.3d 765, 768-69 (7th Cir. (Ind.) 2011).

An exception to the breach of contract exclusion applied based on the retailer and manufacturer's potential "joint and several liability for trade dress infringement.

Distinguished Hugo Boss Fashions, Inc. v. Federal Ins. Co., 252 F.3d 608, 616 (2d Cir. 2001) which construed the legal phrase "trademarked slogan" to include "words or phrases used to promote particular products or product lines" not "[h]ere, by contrast, the relevant policy language is ‘infringement of ... title, or slogan.' . . .  

100% of recoverable defense fees with 10% interest from date of invoice.

 (trademark infringement insurance coverage)

Trade dress infringement/patent infringement insurance coverage.

Penny Preville, Inc. was sued by Judith Ripka Designs, Ltd. for copyright, trade dress, deceptive advertising in violation of § 43 of the Trademark Act, and unfair competition arising out of the manufacture, import, distribution and offer for sale/sales of jewelry which reproduced the copyrighted design of Ripka. Judge Patterson found that Penny Preville's insurers owed it a defense for the asserted claims of trade dress infringement.