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
The proliferation of e-commerce websites along with the rise of social media, blogging, and online communities has greatly increased the importance of affiliate marketing. Affiliate marketing allows an affiliate to earn a...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
The April issue of Sterne Kessler's MarkIt to MarketTM newsletter contains a cautionary tale regarding use of social media, a clarified test for false advertising standing, updates to Canada's Trade-marks Act, and an updated...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
Printing has not been this interesting since Dwight Schrute and Jim Halpert bickered over paper sales and Michael Scott told off-color jokes in “The Office.” Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court stepped into the laser...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
Supreme Court to Consider Lanham Act Standing - What factors should determine standing to sue for false advertising under the Lanham Act? The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to answer that question in a case from...more
On June 3, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the certiorari petition of Lexmark International Inc. ("Lexmark"). Lexmark sought cert to resolve a three-way split among the federal circuit courts regarding how to determine whether...more
The Supreme Court has recently agreed to hear argument in Lexmark v. Static Control that will strike at the very heart of false advertising jurisprudence by asking who is allowed to bring false advertising claims. The Lanham...more
In certain states, only an actual competitor may bring a false advertising claim under the Lanham Act....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