Standing Out: A Commonsense Approach to Standing for False Advertising Suits Under Lanham Act Section 43(A)

44 Pages Posted: 16 Apr 2009

See all articles by Gerald P. Meyer

Gerald P. Meyer

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Date Written: April 9, 2009

Abstract

This Note analyzes the benefits and shortcomings of the varying approaches federal circuit courts have taken when determining which plaintiffs have standing to sue for false advertising under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. Some circuits have adopted a categorical approach, focusing on the relationship of the parties, and requiring the plaintiff to be a direct competitor of the defendant that has suffered a competitive injury to have standing. Other circuits implement a quasi-categorical approach that requires the plaintiff to have a reasonable interest in being protected by the Act and a reasonable belief that the alleged false advertising was damaging in order to have standing. Finally, other circuits have used a somewhat overlapping five-factor balancing test to determine whether the plaintiff has standing.

After conducting a thorough analysis of each approach, the author reasons that each one has significant flaws, ultimately causing uncertainty for plaintiffs contemplating litigation under the Lanham Act. As a recent example, in Phoenix of Broward, Inc. v. McDonald's Corp., the Eleventh Circuit reached a puzzling result that would seemingly vanquish a plaintiff's right to sue for false advertising under the Lanham Act in any market with several competitors. The author determines that none of the approaches is satisfactory and explores an innovative three-prong brightline test designed to reconcile the legislative intent of the Lanham Act with the realities of the marketplace. The author concludes that this new test would be easier to apply than each approach currently in operation and would provide consistent and predictable results, which would also allow litigants to settle and relieve the burden on the federal court system.

Keywords: Lanham Act, 43(a), False Advertising, Standing, Prudential Standing, Trademark, False Endorsement, section 43(a)

Suggested Citation

Meyer, Gerald P., Standing Out: A Commonsense Approach to Standing for False Advertising Suits Under Lanham Act Section 43(A) (April 9, 2009). University of Illinois Law Review, Vol. 2009, No. 1, 2009, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1376082

Gerald P. Meyer (Contact Author)

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ( email )

601 E John St
Champaign, IL Champaign 61820
United States
(217) 714-1261 (Phone)

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
112
Abstract Views
1,030
Rank
439,805
PlumX Metrics