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
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
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
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
On March 25, 2014, the Supreme Court held that false-advertising claims brought under the Lanham Act are not limited to direct competitors of the allegedly false advertiser. Instead, the Act authorizes any person to bring an...more
On March 25, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision resolving an important issue that has implications for companies seeking redress for false advertising and disparagement. In Lexmark...more
Today the US Supreme Court granted cert in the false advertising case, Static Control Components, Inc. v. Lexmark Intl., Inc., 697 F.3d 387, 104 U.S.P.Q.2d 1352 (6th Cir. 2012). ...more