Perspective
Apr. 4, 2015
Reminder to mind your global brand strategy
Recently, a federal district court had the chance to apply the U.S. high court's 2014 Lexmark holding regarding what plaintiffs must show to bring certain Lanham Act claims. By Kimberly Culp
Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Lexmark Intern. Inc. v. Static Control Components Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1377 (2014), that "a plaintiff suing under [Section 1125(a) of the Lanham Act] ordinarily must show economic or reputational injury flowing directly from the deception wrought by the defendant's advertising; and that occurs when deception of consumers causes them to withhold trade from the plaintiff." Companies enforci...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In