policies not at issue here. See Aplt.App. at 2165-66, 2168-69, 2171-72, 2174-75. The present case must be distinguished from Land and Sky for the simple reason that the purported inconsistency does not exist within policies that Dish received contemporaneously from any single insurer. Nonetheless, we do conclude that “misappropriation of advertising ideas,” in the context of this case, is ambiguous and must be construed in favor of coverage. As Insurers note, “policy terms may be ambiguous as applied to one set of facts, but unambiguous as applied to another.” Ins. Resp. Br. at 24 (citing Allstate, 931 P.2d at 514). The scope of “advertising injury” coverage may be manifestly clear in most cases, in which a patented product is advertised and sold. See, e.g., Auto Sox, 88 P.3d at 1011 (<HOLDING>). In a setting where the advertising idea that
holding in a false advertising case under the lanham act that a proposed disclaimer would not suffice to cure the misleadingness of an advertising claim holding that the interpretation of an unambiguous contract is a question of law holding the term misappropriation of an advertising idea to be unambiguous holding that the term shall is mandatory for purposes of statutory construction when the statute is unambiguous holding that there must be a causal connection between an insureds advertising and an alleged injury to trigger coverage for an advertising injury