Standing to sue for false advertising under §1125 (A) of the lanham act: an analysis of Lexmark International, Inc. V. Static Control Components, Inc.
| Autor | María E. Calderón |
| Cargo | J.D. candidate, University of Puerto Rico School of Law |
| Páginas | 41-49 |
STANDING TO SUE FOR FALSE ADVERTISING UNDER §1125(A)
OF THE LANHAM ACT: AN ANALYSIS OF LEXMARK
INTERNATIONAL, INC. V. STATIC CONTROL COMPONENTS, INC.
MARÍA E. CALDERÓN *
I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 41
II. Standing as defined in case law .............................................................................................. 42
III. The concept of standing and the Lanham Act...................................................................... 43
IV. The case at hand: Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. ................................. 45
V. The Controversy: Does Static Control have a right to sue Lexmark under §1125(a)?
46
VI. The new parameters of what constitutes standing to sue under §1125(a) .................. 47
VII. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 48
I. INTRODUCTION
The Lanham Trademark Act (hereinafter, “the Act”) was approved in
1946, with the explicit purpose of protecting persons engaged in commerce
against unfair competition.
1
This mission has traditionally been attributed to
§1125(a) of the Act, which directly addresses the issue of unfair trade practices. In
68 years, this section has been interpreted and reinterpreted in hundreds of
disputes throughout Federal Circuits. Still, the United States Supreme Court’s
opinion in Lexmark v. Static Control
2
marks the first time that this forum has
expressed a definitive opinion regarding who has standing to bring a lawsuit for
false advertising under §1125(a). Up to now, each Circuit had developed its own
set of standards and requirements that aimed to interpret this statute. Faced with
varying and contradicting approaches to what constitutes standing under
§1125(a), the United States’ Supreme Court “granted certiorari to decide the
appropriate analytical framework for determining a party’s standing to maintain
an action for false advertising under the Lanham Act.”
3
* J.D. candidate, Univers ity of Puerto Rico School of Law; Teaching and Research Assistant, Dean
V. Neptune, University of Puerto Rico School of Law; Writer, Vol. LXXXIII, Revista Jurídica de la
Universidad de Puerto Rico; Editor, Vol. IV, University of Puerto Rico Busines s Law Journal; freelance
advertiser; M.A., Boston University; B.A., Princeton University.
1
See Lanham Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C.A. §§1051–1127 (West 2014).
2
Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 1377 (2014).
3
(mem.) (granting certiorari)).
Para continuar leyendo
Solicita tu prueba