Will the Supreme Court’s Lexmark Standing Decision Lead Indirect-Purchaser Antitrust Plaintiffs to Federal Court?* While waiting for my flight to leave San Diego on my way to Washington, DC for the ABA Antitrust Spring Meeting, I saw on Twitter—the best source for immediate Supreme Court news—that the Supreme Court had decided Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. The Supreme Court in that case clarified standing requirements for Lanham Act claims, which create liability for false association and false advertising. The Lanham Act often comes up in legal battles between competitors, as competition often devolves into allegedly false statements about each other’s products or services. The case is significant for standing in general, but I wonder if it may have
Share on
|
|
The US Supreme Court clarifies standing requirements under the federal trademark law with possible implications for the antitrust claims (Lexmark International / Static Control Components)
Access to this article is restricted to subscribers
Already Subscribed? Sign-in
Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.
Read one article for free
Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.
