Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 03 APRIL 2014

Non-Direct Competitors May Sue Under The Lanham Act, Doctrine Of Prudential Standing Eliminated

The Supreme Court of the United States swept away the different standards for Lanham Act prudential standing previously applied by the courts of appeals, and expressly discarded the amorphous concept of prudential standing in all federal statutory cases.

United StatesAntitrust/Competition Law

The Supreme Court of the United States swept away the different standards for Lanham Act prudential standing previously applied by the courts of appeals, and expressly discarded the amorphous concept of prudential standing in all federal statutory cases.


In Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., decided on March 25, 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the right to bring false advertising claims under the Lanham Act is not limited to direct competitors.  Justice Scalia, writing for a unanimous court, applied "traditional principles of statutory interpretation" to determine that Static Control—a manufacturer of parts used by Lexmark's competitors to refurbish and sell toner cartridges—fell within "the class of plaintiffs whom Congress has authorized to sue" under the false advertising provision of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).     

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from