NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FEB 11 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
COLLEGESOURCE, INC., a California No. 11-55708
corporation,
D.C. No. 3:10-cv-01428-JAH-
Plaintiff - Appellant, POR
v.
MEMORANDUM*
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY
OF CONNECTICUT, a Connecticut
corporation,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 6, 2013**
Pasadena, California
Before: CALLAHAN, IKUTA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
CollegeSource, Inc. appeals the district court’s order granting Travelers’s
motion for judgment on the pleadings and denying CollegeSource’s motion for
summary judgment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we
affirm.1
The district court did not err in holding that the allegations in Academy
One’s complaint fell within the Unauthorized Use exclusion in the Travelers
insurance policy and therefore were not within the scope of CollegeSource’s
insurance coverage. Even construing the exclusion narrowly, see MacKinnon v.
Truck Ins. Exch., 73 P.3d 1205, 1213 (Cal. 2003), the phrase “any other similar
activities that mislead another’s potential customers” can be read only as referring
to activities similar to “unauthorized uses of another’s name or product in your e-
mail address, domain name, or metatag,” because “use” is the only word in the
clause which constitutes an “activity.” CollegeSource’s interpretation to the
contrary is not reasonable. See Mez Indus. v. Pac. Nat’l Ins. Co., 76 Cal. App. 4th
856, 868–69 (1999). The only reasonable reading of the complaint’s allegation
(that CollegeSource used AcademyOne’s domain name in its own domain name in
a way likely to cause confusion in the marketplace) is that it claims injury from an
1
CollegeSource’s Request for Judicial Notice, filed December 2, 2011, is
denied as moot.
-2-
activity that (1) is “similar to” the unauthorized use of another’s name or product
in one’s domain name, and (2) would mislead customers. Id.; cf. Brookfield
Commc’ns, Inc. v. West Coast Entm’t Corp., 174 F.3d 1036, 1066 (9th Cir. 1999).
We also reject CollegeSource’s argument that Travelers’s removal of a
trademark infringement exclusion from the policy shows an intent to provide
coverage for domain name infringement. Because the language of the
Unauthorized Use exclusion is unambiguous, we do not consider drafting history
or other extrinsic sources to determine the parties’ intent. See AIU Ins. Co. v.
Super. Ct., 799 P.2d 1253, 1264 (Cal. 1990).
AFFIRMED.
-3-