Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

The Intellectual Property StrategistKickerFeaturesTopicsCommercial LawLitigationSectionsNewsLJN Newsletters

Supreme Court Rules on Standing In False Advertising Cases

By Tiffany R. Brown
May 02, 2014

Until the Supreme Court's recent decision in Lexmark International v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 1377, 2014 WL 1168967 (2014), courts were divided regarding the proper test to determine whether a plaintiff has standing to bring a false advertising claim under 15 U.S.C. '1125(a). Three separate approaches were previously applied among the circuits, the narrowest of which permitted only actual competitors to bring claims of false advertising, an approach that would have automatically barred Static Control from bringing a false advertising claim in this case, regardless of Lexmark's allegedly wrongful actions. The Supreme Court resolved the circuit split by rejecting the previously applied standards, and created a new, uniform “zone of interests” test for determining standing in false advertising cases brought under the Lanham Act.

In Lexmark, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide “the appropriate analytical framework for determining a party's standing to maintain an action for false advertisement under the Lanham Act.” The Supreme Court affirmed the Sixth Circuit's reversal of a district court's dismissal of Static Control's false advertising claim under the Lanham Act. In affirming the Sixth Circuit, the Supreme Court concluded that Static Control was within the class of plaintiffs authorized to sue under '1125(a) because: 1) its alleged injuries ' lost sales and damage to business reputation ' are the exact injuries and the sorts of commercial interests that the Lanham Act is designed to protect; and 2) Static Control adequately pleaded both that it had a commercial injury covered by the Act, and that such injury was proximately caused by Lexmark's misrepresentations.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It Image

Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?

Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.

The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

A Lawyer's System for Active Reading Image

Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.

Protecting Innovation in the Cyber World from Patent Trolls Image

With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.