United States: Non-Competitors May Now Bring False Advertising Claims Under The Lanham Act

Last Updated: April 11 2014

Article by Laura Goldbard George, Matthew Siegal and Madelon Witte, a law school graduate awaiting admission.

Supreme Court Rules in Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.

On March 25, 2014, the Supreme Court made it easier for a non-competitor to state a claim for false advertising under the Lanham Act. The Court resolved a long-standing split among the Circuits by explaining that a company may sue a non-competitor for false advertising under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, as long as it alleges "an injury to a commercial interest in reputation or sales" that was proximately caused by the allegedly false or misleading advertisements.1 Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., No. 12-873, 572 U.S. ___ (2014) (slip op.) ("Lexmark"). In doing so, the Court overruled numerous potentially more complex tests that had been applied by the Circuit Courts for determining the circumstances under which non-competitors could assert such an action. Specifically, the Court found that Static Control could sue Lexmark under the Lanham Act for statements Lexmark made to Static Control's customers regarding Static Control's alleged violation of Lexmark's intellectual property, even though Lexmark was not Static Control's direct competitor, on the grounds that Lexmark's public statements were the proximate cause of the requisite injury to Static Control.2

The Circuits had been divided on the circumstances under which an entity, believing itself to be falsely accused of intellectual property violations or indirectly harmed by other types of false advertising, could sue its accuser under the false advertising provisions of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B). Faced with a conflicting mélange of standards by which to determine when a plaintiff could bring such a suit, the Supreme Court rejected them all. Instead, the Court determined that in order to bring a suit under § 43(a), a company must show that its interests fall within "the zone of interests" covered by the Lanham Act, such as interests in sales or business reputation, and that the injury suffered was "proximately caused" by the defendant's activity and therefore, not too remotely related.3


Lexmark sells printers and toner cartridges for use in its printers. The empty cartridges fuel a robust aftermarket. Third party remanufacturers acquire, refill, refurbish and offer the refurbished cartridges for sale in competition with cartridges sold by Lexmark itself. In order to combat these aftermarket sales, Lexmark initiated a "Prebate" program in an effort to contractually restrict the rights cartridge purchasers have to directly or indirectly refill used cartridges. New cartridges bear a "shrinkwrap" license stipulating that once empty, the cartridges will be returned to Lexmark.4

Lexmark embeds each Prebate cartridge with a microchip, which is programmed to deactivate the cartridge once empty. Upon return of the cartridge, Lexmark replaces the microchip, refills and refurbishes the cartridge, then resells the refurbished cartridge. Static Control sells toner and other supplies to cartridge remanufacturers but does not sell cartridges to consumers in competition with Lexmark.5 Rather, Static Control developed a substitute microchip and sells that chip to remanufacturers for inclusion in refurbished Lexmark cartridges.6

Lexmark sued Static Control, alleging that the substitute chips violated its copyright and other intellectual property in the chips. Lexmark also sent letters to Static Control's customers, alleging that it was illegal to use Static Control's microchip to override Lexmark's deactivation technology. Static Control denied infringement and also counterclaimed under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act for false advertising. Static Control alleged that Lexmark's letters, pronouncing Static Control's merchandise illegal, had fraudulently diverted sales from Static Control to Lexmark, even though Lexmark and Static Control were not direct competitors.7

Circuit Split

The district court dismissed Static Control's counterclaim, holding that under a balancing test articulated by an earlier Supreme Court case, Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519 (1983), Static Control was not the proper party to bring the false advertising claim. The district court held that because the remanufacturers were more directly injured by Lexmark's accusations of illegality, the remanufacturers were the appropriate plaintiffs, and that Static Control's injury was too remote for it to state a claim. The court found that Lexmark's "alleged intent [was] to dry up spent cartridge supplies at the remanufacturing level, rather than at [Static Control's chip] supply level, making remanufacturers Lexmark's alleged intended target."8

The Sixth Circuit reversed by applying a "reasonable interest" test, developed by the Second Circuit,9 to assess whether Static Control had enough of a direct interest to bring the claim. The Sixth Circuit held that Static Control was an appropriate Lanham Act plaintiff, because it "alleged a cognizable interest in its business reputation and sales to remanufacturers and sufficiently alleged that th[o]se interests were harmed by Lexmark's statements to the remanufacturers that Static Control was engaging in illegal conduct."10

Under such circumstances, different circuits have applied different tests that have led to different outcomes. The Third, Fifth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits analyzed Lanham Act false advertising claims under an "antitrust standing" test, which employed the same multifactor balancing test engaged in by the district court when it held that Static Control had not stated a cause of action under the Lanham Act. On the other hand, the Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits analyzed these claims under a bright-line categorical test, allowing suits to move forward only when brought by an actual competitor. The Second Circuit and, in this instance, the Sixth Circuit, applied a "reasonable interest" test.11

The Decision

The Supreme Court declined to adopt any of these tests and instead articulated a new two-prong test. First, the plaintiff's interest must exist within the "zone of interests" intended to be protected by the Lanham Act. Second, the injury for which the plaintiff seeks redress must be "proximately tied" to the defendant's alleged violation.12

The Court explained that the "zone of interests" or "sphere of intended protection" is explicitly spelled out by Section 45 of the Act:

The intent of this chapter is to regulate commerce within the control of Congress by making actionable the deceptive and misleading use of marks in such commerce; to protect registered marks used in such commerce from interference by State, or territorial legislation; to protect persons engaged in such commerce against unfair competition; to prevent fraud and deception in such commerce by the use of reproductions, copies, counterfeits, or colorable imitations of registered marks; and to provide rights and remedies stipulated by treaties and conventions respecting trademarks, trade names, and unfair competition entered into between the United States and foreign nations.13

Interpreting this statement of intent, the Supreme Court held that "to come within the zone of interests in a suit for false advertising under § 1125(a), a plaintiff must allege an injury to a commercial interest in reputation or sales." It is crucial that the injury alleged be related to a commercial interest – "a business misled by a supplier into purchasing an inferior product is, like consumers generally, not under the Act's aegis."14

The second prong of the standard requires that the plaintiff's injury be proximately caused by violation of the Lanham Act's proscription on false or misleading advertising. Although proximate cause can be a nebulous concept, according to the Court, the crux of the inquiry is "whether the harm alleged has a sufficiently close connection to the conduct the statute prohibits."15 In other words, the harm may not be so remote from the Lanham Act violation that the plaintiff cannot show "economic or reputational injury flowing directly from the deception wrought by the defendant's advertising."16 Such an injury occurs "when deception of consumers causes them to withhold trade from the plaintiff."17 As an example, the Court explained that "while a competitor who is forced out of business by a defendant's false advertising generally will be able to sue for its losses, the same is not true of the competitor's landlord, its electric company, and other commercial parties who suffer merely as a result of the competitor's 'inability to meet [its] financial obligations.'"18


Prior to this decision, an indirect competitor such as Static Control would have had more difficulty stating a claim under Section 43(a) in circuits adhering to the bright-line "actual competitor" test and those adhering to the balancing test followed by the district court. Now, an indirect competitor harmed by false or misleading advertising need only allege an injury to its commercial interest in reputation or sales, proximately caused by the defendant's alleged Lanham Act violation. This change opens the door to § 43(a) suits previously foreclosed by circuits adhering to the aforementioned bright-line and balancing standards.

Based on Lexmark, potential liability stemming from allegedly misleading, disparaging, or false advertising which harms business reputation is greater today than it was prior to this decision. Although "diversion of sales to a direct competitor may be the paradigmatic direct injury from false advertising, it is not the only type of injury cognizable under §1125(a)."19 Static Control's allegations that Lexmark harmed its reputation by impugning the legality of its products was found to be an injury intended for protection by the Lanham Act, and was found to be proximately caused by the Act's alleged breach. Even though Static Control and Lexmark are not direct competitors, "competition is not required for proximate cause."20

For More Information

Laura Goldbard George

Matthew Siegal


1. Slip Op. at 13.

2. Slip Op. at 10.

3. Id.

4. Slip Op. at 2.

5. Id.

6. Id.

7. Slip Op. at 4.

8. App. to Pet. for Cert. 83.

9. The reasonable interest test: whether an entity could show that it had a "reasonable interest to be protected against the alleged false advertising," and a "reasonable basis for believing that the interest is likely to be damaged by the false advertising." Slip Op. at 5

10. 697 F.3d at 411

11. Slip Op. at 5.

12. Slip Op. at 13.

13. 15 U.S.C. § 1127

14. Slip Op. at 13.

15. Slip Op. at 14.

16. Slip Op. at 15.

17. Id.

18. Id. (citing Anza, 547 U.S. at 458).

19. Slip Op. at 19.

20. Slip Op. at 20.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions