The U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Lexmark International v. Static Control Components, 134 S. Ct. 1377 (March 25, 2014), is noteworthy for resolving a split among the circuit courts. In doing so, the court’s decision effectively broadens the class of plaintiffs that can bring claims for false advertising under the Lanham Act.
Beyond this, the decision is also a substantial step in the court’s ongoing adjustment of standing doctrine. In short, the Lexmark decision begins to dismantle the judge-made doctrine of prudential standing in favor of more straightforward statutory interpretation. Nevertheless, the opinion relies heavily on judge-made common law for its interpretation of the Lanham Act’s scope. Ultimately, the central role of the judiciary under the act cannot be abandoned.
This content has been archived.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]
