Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Supreme Court Rules on Standing In False Advertising Cases
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.
Lexmark's Actions And the Parties' Relationship
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- 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
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?