In Aroa Marketing, Inc. v. Hartford Ins. Co. of the Midwest (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 781 a model named Radcliffe filed suit against Aroa Marketing, alleging that it had made unauthorized use of her image and likeness, diminishing her marketability and publicity value and depriving her of her right of publicity. (Id. at p. 785.) The suit asserted claims for " 'statutory and common law misappropriation of likeness, breach of contract, unjust enrichment and unfair competition.'" (Ibid.) Aroa tendered defense to Hartford, whose policy excluded " 'Personal and advertising injury' " arising out of " ' "any violation of any intellectual property rights, such as copyright, patent, trademark, trade name, trade secret, service mark, or other designation of origin or authenticity." ' " (Aroa, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at p. 785.) Hartford declined the tender, its declination letter stating, " 'it is well settled under California law, both statutory and common law, that, while the right of publicity is derivative from a right of privacy, it is clearly considered an intellectual property right which is specifically excluded from coverage under the Policy.' " (Ibid.) Aroa settled Radcliffe's case and then sued Hartford. Hartford demurred, arguing among other things that the causes of action were "excluded by the policy's intellectual property rights exclusion." (Aroa, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at pp. 785-786.) The trial court sustained the demurrer, and the Court of Appeal affirmed: "Hartford contends the intellectual property rights exclusion applies in this case. The insurance policy at issue excluded coverage for '"personal and advertising injury"' arising out of 'any violation of any intellectual property rights such as copyright, patent, trademark, trade name, trade secret, service mark or other designation of origin or authenticity.' 'The right of publicity, like copyright, protects a form of intellectual property that society deems to have some social utility.' (Comedy III Productions, Inc. v. Gary Saderup, Inc. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 387, 399 106 Cal. Rptr. 2d 126, 21 P.3d 797; see also Black's Law Dict. (10th ed. 2014) p. 930 'intellectual property' defined to include 'publicity rights'.) Thus, the right of publicity is an intellectual property right, and right of publicity claims would be excluded from coverage under the intellectual property rights exclusion. "Aroa contends the intellectual property rights exclusion does not apply to right of publicity claims because the right of publicity is not specifically listed in the exclusion. We disagree. The exclusion applies when the injury arises out of 'any violation of any intellectual property rights.' Even if this language is interpreted narrowly against the insurer, it clearly applies to bar claims based on the right of publicity, as that right has been held to be an intellectual property right. Furthermore, the fact that the right of publicity is not specifically listed after the phrase 'any intellectual property rights' does not suggest the exclusion does not apply. The exclusion provides that intellectual property rights are those 'such as copyright, patent, trademark, trade name, trade secret, service mark or other designation of origin or authenticity.' Thus, by its terms, the list is expressly nonexclusive. (Cf. Shaddox v. Bertani (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1406, 1414 in statutory construction, '"the phrase 'such as' is not a phrase of strict limitation, but is a phrase of general similitude indicating that there are includable other matters of the same kind which are not specifically enumerated." .'.) Moreover, to the extent Radcliffe is claiming use of her likeness constituted an endorsement, that too falls within the category of intellectual property claims listed in the exclusion, such as trademark. (See Waits v. Frito-Lay, Inc. (9th Cir. 1992) 978 F.2d 1093, 1110 false endorsement claim based on the unauthorized use of a celebrity's identity alleges misuse of trademark.)" (Aroa, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at pp. 788-789.)