U.S. Supreme Court To Decide Standing Requirement To Bring False Advertising Claim

In certain states, only an actual competitor may bring a false advertising claim under the Lanham Act.  This may soon change.  On June 3, 2013, in Lexmark International Inc. v. Static Control Components Inc. (Case No. 12-873), the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit holding that a non-competitor has standing to allege a claim of false advertising under the Lanham Act. The parties are Lexmark International, Inc. (“Lexmark”) and Static Control Components, Inc. (“Static Control”).

Lexmark asserted various copyright and patent infringement claims against Static Control related to, among other things, Static Control’s manufacture and sale of microchips used by remanufacturers of toner cartridges for Lexmark’s laser printers. As one of its counterclaims, Static Control asserted false advertising under the Lanham Act, alleging that Lexmark falsely informed customers that Static Control’s products infringed Lexmark’s purported intellectual property, thus damaging Static Control’s business and reputation. The Sixth Circuit determined Static Control had standing to bring such a claim, even though Static Control was not a laser printer manufacturer and therefore not a direct competitor.

The Sixth Circuit held that a claimant has standing if it can demonstrate (1) a “reasonable interest” to be protected against the alleged false advertising and (2) a reasonable basis for believing that the interest is likely to be damaged by the alleged false advertising. While this standard is also applied by the Second Circuit, it contrasts with the standard used by the Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits which permits Lanham Act suits only by an actual competitor.  The Third, Fifth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits follow yet another standard. By granting the petition for writ of certiorari, the U.S. Supreme Court will hopefully resolve the disagreement among the United States circuit courts as to who has standing to sue for false advertising claim.

 

Written by:

Published In:

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Carlton Fields Jorden Burt | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.
×
Loading...
×