Last year, in Lexmark Int’l v. Static Control Components,1 the U.S. Supreme Court used a Lanham Act false advertising case to overhaul the prudential standing doctrine. Resolving a variety of competing circuit views, Lexmark set forth a straightforward two-prong test for plaintiffs to bring a false advertising case. In the time since Lexmark was decided, Lanham Act jurisprudence has developed in some interesting ways, and this article surveys some illustrative decisions.
‘Lexmark’
Lexmark was a dispute between indirect competitors: the eponymous printer manufacturer and Static Control Components, the manufacturer of a microchip enabling third-party “remanufacturers” to refurbish Lexmark toner cartridges. Lexmark concerned Static Control’s Lanham Act false advertising counterclaim, which challenged statements made by Lexmark to its consumers (concerning the legality of selling their used cartridges to third-party remanufacturers) and to remanufacturers (asserting “that it was illegal to use Static Control’s products to refurbish those cartridges”).2
This content has been archived.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]
