The latest on ‘advertising injury’ clause interpretation. The clause covered slogans or titles. The underlying infringement action involved pocket stitching on apparel. If the language was unambiguous, there is a strong preference to enforce the insurer’s duty to defend. The stitching was definitely not a slogan. When the underlying action was filed, there was sufficient uncertainty as to whether the stitching could be understood to be a ‘title,’ such that there was a duty to defend. Vacated and remanded for further proceedings.