false advertising

Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.

Issues

What is the appropriate framework to determine standing in a false advertising action under the Lanham Act?

Petitioner Lexmark International, Inc., a major producer of laser printers, developed a microchip for its toner cartridges to restrict third-party businesses from replacing Lexmark cartridges. Respondent Static Control Components, Inc. replicated that microchip, thereby allowing third parties to refill and resell used Lexmark cartridges. Lexmark responded by telling businesses that the use of Static’s replicated microchips would infringe Lexmark’s patent. In a 2004 lawsuit, Static brought false advertisement claims against Lexmark under the Lanham Act. The district court dismissed those charges, concluding that Static lacked standing. The Sixth Circuit reversed that dismissal, reasoning that Static had a cognizable business interest that was harmed by Lexmark’s remarks; therefore, Static had standing and qualified for protection under the Lanham Act. The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case will resolve a circuit split over the proper framework for determining prudential standing in false advertising claims under the Lanham Act. Accordingly, this case will determine who can assert false advertising claims under the Lanham Act.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether the appropriate framework for determining a party’s appropriate standing for a cause of action for false advertising under the Lanham Act is (1) the test established in Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of Carpenters as used by the Third, Fifth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits; (2) the categorical test, allowing suits only by an actual competitor, used by the Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits; or (3) a more expansive “reasonable interest” test, applied by both the Sixth Circuit lower decision below, and also the Second Circuit?

top

Facts

Petitioner Lexmark International, Inc. (“Lexmark”) is a major manufacturer of laser printers and toner cartridges. See Static Control Components, Inc. v. Lexmark Intl., Inc., 697 F.3d 387, 394–395 (6th Cir. 2012). Typically, manufacturers like Lexmark dominate the aftermarket of toner cartridge sales, because manufacturers tend to produce printers compatible solely with their cartridges.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

top

Submit for publication
0

Pom Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Company

Issues

Do the FDA and FDCA preempt private claims of false advertisement under the Lanham Act?

The Coca-Cola Company sells a “Blueberry Pomegranate” beverage blend containing less than 1% pomegranate and blueberry juice.  Federal statutes and regulations provide specific guidelines for juice labeling, which are enforced by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”). However, the FDA has not sued Coca-Cola, and Coca-Cola asserts that it has followed the federal law. Pom Wonderful LLC, a competitor that sells pomegranate juice, alleges that Coca-Cola’s juice label constitutes an unfair trade practice and sued Coca-Cola under the Lanham Act. Pom argues that the Lanham Act’s provisions deterring unfair trade practices complement federal food-labeling laws. Coca-Cola, however, argues that the Lanham Act cannot apply to issues of food labeling, and that food-labeling statutes narrow the scope of a general statute for unfair trade practices. The Court’s decision will impact the uniformity of food-labeling rules, and private parties’ right to sue for unfair trade practices in the food and drug industries. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that a private party cannot bring a Lanham Act claim challenging a product label regulated under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. 

top

Facts

The Coca-Cola Company (“Coca-Cola”) introduced a new beverage called “Pomegranate Blueberry” in September 2007. See POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 679 F.3d 1170, 1172 (9th Cir. Cal.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

top

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to false advertising