MEMORANDUM

1P.C. Woo, Inc., dba Megatoys (“Megatoys”), appeals the district court’s order denying its motion for summary judgment and granting the cross-motion of Tokio Marine and Fire Insurance Company, Ltd. (“Tokio Marine”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1291 and affirm.

2GMA Accesories, Inc., filed suit against Megatoys, alleging copyright infringement and unfair competition. GMA’s claims were based on Megatoys’ manufacture and sale of non-brand toys that allegedly infringed on works of art created by GMA. Megatoys displayed the alleged infringing products at a Las Vegas trade show between August 20-24, 2000, March 4–8, 2001 and August 12–16, 2001, as well as on the floor of its Los Angeles showroom during August 2000 and September 2001.

3Tokio Marine issued a series of commercial general liability (“CGL”) policies to Megatoys. These policies are “occurrence” policies rather than “claims-made” policies. The policies define “occurrence” to mean “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions.” Both CGL policy No. CPP414206300, effective December 15, 1999 to October 1, 2000, and CGL policy No. CPP414352900, effective October 1, 2000 to October 1, 2001, potentially apply to GMA’s claims against Megatoys.1

4Policy No. CPP414206300 does not define the term “advertisement”; the other policy defines “advertisement” to mean “a notice that is broadcast or published to the general public or specific market segments about your goods, products or services for the purpose of attracting customers or supporters.” Both policies provide that “advertising injury,” which includes copyright infringement, caused by an offense committed in the course of “advertising” will be covered “but only if the offense was committed … during the policy period.”

5Tokio Marine denied coverage. We need not determine which policy is applicable. Megatoys’ alleged infringing conduct does not constitute “advertising” under either policy.

6In Hameid v. National Fire Insurance of Hartford, 71 P.3d 761, 764 (Cal. 2003), the CGL policy did not define the term “advertising.” The California Supreme Court adopted what it deemed the “majority approach” to the issue, and interpreted “advertising” to mean “widespread promotional activities usually directed to the public at large.” Id. at 766. Megatoys’ alleged infringing conduct, which is neither widespread nor directed to the public at large, does not fall within this definition. We are not persuaded that El-Com Hardware, Inc. v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, 111 Cal. Rptr. 2d 670 (Ct. App. 2001), a Court of Appeal decision issued a year before Hameid, changes the result.

7Nor does Megatoys’ alleged infringing conduct fall within the definition of “advertising” in the second CGL policy. See Rombe Corp. v. Allied Ins. Co., 27 Cal. Rptr. 3d 99, 106-07 (Ct. App. 2005) (considering a policy definition of “advertisement” identical to the second CGL policy here and concluding that “[a]ny plain reading of the words published and broadcast include the notion of a relatively large and disparate audience”).

8AFFIRMED.