Since its enactment in 1947, Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act—the federal false advertising statute—has rarely been addressed by the Supreme Court. This term, however, the Supreme Court issued two Lanham Act decisions: Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components1 and POM Wonderful v. Coca-Cola2 These unanimous decisions made it easier for plaintiffs to bring Lanham Act false advertising suits. In both cases, the court focused on the express purpose of Section 43(a), to afford commercial competitors a remedy “for unfair competition through misleading advertising or labeling.”3 The court emphasized the statute’s broad scope and substance, thereby potentially encouraging more competitors to pursue relief under the act.
The Lexmark Decision
Lexmark involved a false advertising claim against printer manufacturer Lexmark by Static Control, a manufacturer of components that third parties use to assemble Lexmark-compatible toner cartridges. Lexmark objected to Static Control’s products on patent and copyright grounds and sent mailings to various third parties to that effect, warning them that using Static Control’s products violated the law. Static Control contended that the notices violated Section 43(a) the Lanham Act.
This content has been archived.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]
