it would be artificial to deny coverage by constructing a distinction between injuries arising from the marketing of infringing goods and injuries arising from the display or advertising of the goods. Furthermore, the counterclaim alleges that actual confusion was caused by DeLorme’s advertising activities. Thus, the counterclaim, .viewed from the perspective of an average person untrained in either the law or the insurance field, as required under Maine law, see Union Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 521 A.2d at 310, alleges that the infringement occurred in the course of DeLorme’s advertising activities. The majority of courts that have considered whether a trademark infringement claim arose out of an “advertising injury” under the same form policy agree. See Gemmy Indus. Corp., 1998 WL 804698 *3 (<HOLDING>); Dog-loo, Inc., 907 F.Supp. at 1391 (in
holding that it is impossible to allege a lanham act claim without the infringing mark being used to identify the goods or services to the public holding that  43a of the lanham act is confined to remedy injuries to a competitor holding that the government can restrict a public officials speech if it is necessary to the effective delivery of public services holding lanham act applies only to tangible goods offered for sale not the author of any idea concept or communication holding that the commercial use requirement of section 1125c is virtually synonymous with the in connection with the sale offering for sale distribution or advertising of goods and services requirement of the lanham act