The U.S. Supreme Court held in 2014 that the Lanham Act’s false advertising provision governs only commercial, not consumer, injuries. On April 4, 2023, while acknowledging that the distinction between commercial and consumer...more
In upholding a grocery store chain’s standing to petition for cancellation of a US trademark registration, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s (TTAB’s) express...more
CORCAMORE, LLC v. SFM, LLC - Before Reyna, Chen, and Hughes. On appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Whether a party has satisfied the requirements to bring a petition for trademark cancellation...more
In a recent application of the Supreme Court’s 2014 Lexmark decision on standing, Judge Katharine Hayden of the District of New Jersey held last month that an herbal extract manufacturer allegedly misled by its supplier into...more
A judge in the Western District of Wisconsin recently denied a motion for a preliminary injunction that sought to prevent a customer from criticizing the plaintiff’s products over social media. Buckeye Int’l v. Schmidt Custom...more
On February 27, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States denied certiorari in Belmora LLC v. Bayer Consumer Care AG, 819 F.3d 697 (4th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, __ S. Ct. __, 2017 WL 737826 (U.S. Feb. 27, 2017) (No....more
#10 Design Patent Damages § 289 - Samsung Elecs. Co., v. Apple Inc., 580 U.S. _ (Dec. 6, 2016) - In the case of a multicomponent product, the relevant article of manufacture for arriving at a damages award under...more
Under the doctrine of patent exhaustion, otherwise referred to as the “first sale doctrine,” the initial authorized sale of a patented item exhausts a patent owner’s rights to further control the sale, offer for sale, or use...more
In Belmora LLC v. Bayer Consumer Care AG,1 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is faced with novel issues about the reach of the Lanham Act. The case arose from Bayer’s filing of a petition to cancel Belmora’s...more
In a recent application of the Supreme Court’s 2014 Lexmark decision on standing, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held last month that a yarn retailer who alleged it was misled by its supplier into purchasing...more
In Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. (March 25, 2014), the Supreme Court unanimously held that "to invoke the Lanham Act’s cause of action for false advertising, a plaintiff must plead (and ultimately...more
On March 25, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Lexmark International Inc. v. Static Control Components Inc., holding that a two-prong analysis comprised of the "zone-of-interests" test and a "proximate-cause"...more
On March 25, 2014, the Supreme Court clarified the standing requirements for false advertising claims brought under the Lanham Act. In Lexmark Intl., Inc. v. Static Control Components Inc., 572 U.S. ___ (2014), the Court, in...more
On March 25, 2014, the Supreme Court, in Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. ___ (2014), resolved a circuit split regarding the test for standing to assert a claim for false advertising...more
Shanghai High People’s Court Rules That Resale Price Maintenance Agreement Constitutes Monopolistic Agreement - The Shanghai High People’s Court recently made available its Aug. 1, 2013 final judgment overruling the...more
Key Takeaways - - The US Supreme Court created a uniform test for standing for false advertising claims under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, resolving a three-way circuit split. - The new standing test...more
SPECIAL FOCUS: Supreme Court Adopts Broad Standing Test for False Advertising Plaintiffs - On March 25th, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion regarding the test for standing in false advertising cases...more
On March 25, 2014, Justice Antonin Scalia authored an opinion for a unanimous United States Supreme Court in Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., case number 12-873, setting forth a bright-line test...more
The Supreme Court of the United States swept away the different standards for Lanham Act prudential standing previously applied by the courts of appeals, and expressly discarded the amorphous concept of prudential standing in...more
On March 25, 2014, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion, authored by Justice Scalia, in Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. In a previous post, I discussed my involvement in this case at...more
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court on Tuesday, in the case of Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., ___ S.Ct. ___, Case 12-873 (Mar. 25, 2014), settled an open issue regarding the relevant test for...more
On March 25, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Static Control Components, Inc. had the right to sue Lexmark International Inc. under the Lanham Act’s false advertising prong. In doing so, the Court established a new...more
In a March 25, 2014 decision, the United States Supreme Court clarified what class of plaintiffs have standing to sue for false advertisement under the Lanham Act (codified at 15 U.S.C. §1125(a)). Lexmark sells the...more
On March 25, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Lexmark International v. Static Control Components, ruling that Static Control may proceed with its false advertising counterclaim under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act...more
A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court held Tuesday that a plaintiff may bring a false advertising claim under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), even where the plaintiff is not a direct competitor of the defendant. A false...more