E SSI’s president testified that the company was contending there had been a misappropriation of trade secrets for use in Sentex’s sales materials. Although ESSI’s president disclaimed having seen its trade secrets in Sentex’s written sales materials, he testified that the information was used to market Sentex products in other ways. In this day and age, advertising cannot be limited to written sales materials, and the concept of marketing includes a wide variety of direct and indirect advertising strategies. It is significant that ESSI’s claims for misappropriation of trade secrets relate to marketing and sales and not to secrets relating to the manufacture and production of security systems. Cf. Simply Fresh Fruit, Inc. v. Continental Ins. Co., 84 F.3d 1105, 1107-08 (9th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). While we may agree with Hartford that the
holding that insurer had a continuing duty to defend holding that the insurer had no duty to defend the insured because the allegations of the initial complaint did not allege facts which would bring the case within the coverage of the title insurance policy holding that the insurer did not have a duty to defend because the pleadings alleged that the defendants had acted intentionally rather than negligently holding that an insurer had no duty to defend under an advertisinginjury provision where the third partys allegations concerned the misappropriation of trade secrets which related to the methods for processing fruit rather than advertising or marketing holding that a claim against an insurer for vexatious refusal to pay cannot be maintained where the court finds that the insurer has no duty to defend under the policy