reasoned that there was “no indication in the policy that the phrase was intended to be so limited,” and that “the ordinary meaning of the term misappropriation encompasses a wider spectrum of harms.” Id. Similarly, in Adolfo House Distributing Corp. v. Travelers Property & Casualty Insurance Co., 165 F.Supp.2d 1332 (S.D.Fla.2001), the court reasoned that, even assuming that “misappropriation” could refer solely to common law misappropriation, it was “at least equally reasonable” to conclude that the term referred more generally to wrongful acquisition. Id. at 1340 n. 3. Accordingly, the court decided that the term must be given “the interpretation which provide[d] the most coverage.” Id.; Cat Internet Servs., Inc. v. Providence Washington Ins. Co., 333 F.3d 138, 142 (3d Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); Bay Elec. Supply, Inc. v. Travelers Lloyds
holding that contributory trademark infringement requires some predicate act of infringement holding that although the underlying action is one for trademark infringement the infringement occurred as a result of the underlying defendants use of the trademark in their advertising holding that the continued use of licensed trademark after termination of franchise agreement constituted trademark infringement and breach of contract holding the term misappropriation of an advertising idea to be unambiguous holding that policy covering misappropriation of advertising ideas entitled insured to coverage for trademark infringement claim