Tuesday’s unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lexmark International Inc. v. Static Control Components Inc. didn’t just expand the ranks of companies with standing to bring Lanham Act false advertising claims. It also vindicated Static Control’s decision to let a young, relatively untested lawyer handle the oral argument.
As The National Law Journal’s Tony Mauro reports, the high court’s ruling came in a bitter legal battle between two companies involved in the selling of replacement printer cartridges. Affirming the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the justices ruled 9-0 that Static Control can proceed with claims that Lexmark engaged in false advertising by telling Static Control’s customers that its business model is illegal. More significantly, the justices ushered in a new approach to so-called prudential standing that is expected to make it easier for companies that aren’t in direct competition to bring Lanham Act claims.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
