Article ID: bb7e0f06642dc3b6e311caa1231b9bc13443b71ecbf5dbb12427507be959b58e
Source ID: secondary:businessinsurance.com
Published At: -
Extraction Method: bs4_heuristic
URL: https://www.businessinsurance.com/full-tilt-arcade-operator-loses-trademark-coverage-fight/
Body Text
‘Full Tilt’ arcade operator loses trademark coverage fight - Business Insurance Skip to content Register for free Search Search Log In Risk Management Cyber Risks Pricing Trends Mergers & Acquisitions Technology Sponsored Content WSIA RISKWORLD Workers Comp & Safety Workers Comp Cost Control Pain Management Workplace Safety International EMEA Asia-Pacific Latin America People Events BI Intelligence Top 100 Agents & Brokers Best Places to Work 2025 Lists Directories Insurance Pricing BI Stock Index Magazine Current Issue Past Issues Subscribe Women to Watch ALL INsurance Resources Risk Perspectives Sponsored Content Webinars White Papers Risk Management Cyber Risks Pricing Trends Mergers & Acquisitions Technology Sponsored Content WSIA RISKWORLD Workers Comp & Safety Workers Comp Cost Control Pain Management Workplace Safety International EMEA Asia-Pacific Latin America People Events BI Intelligence Top 100 Agents & Brokers Best Places to Work 2025 Lists Directories Insurance Pricing BI Stock Index Magazine Current Issue Past Issues Subscribe Women to Watch ALL INsurance Resources Risk Perspectives Sponsored Content Webinars White Papers Risk Management Cyber Risks Pricing Trends Mergers & Acquisitions Technology Sponsored Content WSIA RISKWORLD Workers Comp & Safety Workers Comp Cost Control Pain Management Workplace Safety International EMEA Asia-Pacific Latin America People Events BI Intelligence Top 100 Agents & Brokers Best Places to Work 2025 Lists Directories Insurance Pricing BI Stock Index Magazine Current Issue Past Issues Subscribe Women to Watch ALL INsurance Resources Risk Perspectives Sponsored Content Webinars White Papers Risk Management Cyber Risks Pricing Trends Mergers & Acquisitions Technology Sponsored Content WSIA RISKWORLD Workers Comp & Safety Workers Comp Cost Control Pain Management Workplace Safety International EMEA Asia-Pacific Latin America People Events BI Intelligence Top 100 Agents & Brokers Best Places to Work 2025 Lists Directories Insurance Pricing BI Stock Index Magazine Current Issue Past Issues Subscribe Women to Watch ALL INsurance Resources Risk Perspectives Sponsored Content Webinars White Papers ‘Full Tilt’ arcade operator loses trademark coverage fight by Richard Sine Coverage Disputes , General liability May 26, 2026 A commercial general liability insurer has no duty to defend or indemnify an Indiana arcade operator sued for trademark infringement, a federal court ruled last week, finding that the policy’s intellectual property exclusion barred coverage. The ruling in Western Reserve Mutual Casualty Co. v. Noah’s Arcade LLC found that the policy issued by Western Reserve, based in Wooster, Ohio, did not cover any of the claims brought against the operator of a La Porte, Indiana, arcade and entertainment venue known as “Full Tilt.” In 2023, Nickels and Dimes Inc., a Celina, Texas-based operator of “Tilt Studio” arcades, sued Noah’s Arcade and its owners in federal court in Indiana. Nickels and Dimes, which holds federal service mark registrations for “Tilt” and “Tilt Studio,” alleged that the defendants’ use of the “Full Tilt” name and logo infringed its marks and amounted to unfair competition and “cybersquatting.” Western Reserve initially defended the arcade under a reservation of rights provision but said in late 2024 that coverage did not apply. The underlying suit was stayed pending the outcome of the coverage case. Noah’s Arcade argued that the trademark claims triggered coverage under the policy’s personal and advertising injury provision, which covered injuries arising from “the use of another’s advertising idea” or “infringing upon another’s copyright, trade dress, or slogan” in an advertisement. Judge Cristal C. Brisco of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana said that the policy’s definition of covered personal and advertising injury listed copyright, trade dress, and slogan but not trademarks. In addition, the policy’s exclusions section explicitly barred coverage for personal and advertising injury “arising out of the infringement of copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret or other intellectual property rights.” The arcade’s owners argued that the plaintiff’s “family of marks” represented a “brand extension strategy” that qualified as an advertising idea under the policy. The court rejected that argument, finding that accepting it would collapse the policy’s explicit distinction between trademarks and advertising ideas. The judge further found the policy’s prior publication exclusion also applied. Facebook posts showed the defendants using the allegedly infringing marks as far back as August 2022, before the policy period began in early 2023. Related News Private credit turmoil stokes worries among insurers, regulators May 26, 2026 Mid-year renewals down 20% as cat bonds pressure market May 25, 2026 South Korean insurers back $199M Hormuz cover May 25, 2026 Mine blast kills 82, exposes major violations May 25, 2026 Air France, Airbus found guilty in AF447 crash May 25, 2026 Cat bond issuances near $16.3B May 25, 2026 Salama’s profit surges despite revenue decline May 25, 2026 Shell emissions case reaches Dutch Supreme Court May 25, 2026 State high court revives claims against former insurance agency staff May 22, 2026 Facebook-f X-twitter Linkedin-in Business Insurance is a singular, authoritative news and information source for executives focused upon risk management, risk transfer and risk financing. Never miss important news: Become a Business Insurance Online subscriber today Subscribe Now Information About Us Contact Advertise Privacy Policy Terms & Conditions Copyright 2026. BUSINESS INSURANCE HOLDINGS Member, Beacon International Group, Ltd.
Metadata (JSON)
{
"score": 14
}