The ability of a plaintiff to bring false advertising claims and concerns over unfair competition under federal trademark law just got a bit easier. On March 25, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Lexmark International v. Static Control Components, ruling that Static Control may proceed with its false advertising counterclaim against Lexmark under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act even though the parties are not direct competitors. The decision resolves a longstanding split among virtually all of the federal circuit courts of appeal over Section 43(a)’s standing requirement.
The Supremes unanimously held that a plaintiff who alleges injury to a commercial interest in reputation or sales flowing directly from a defendant’s actions in violation of the statute falls within the “zone of interests” Section 43(a) was designed to protect. A plaintiff has standing to assert a claim regardless of whether it is in direct competition with the defendants. The court created a new national standard that applies explicitly to federal false advertising claims, and may ultimately apply equally to other federal statutory torts.
False Advertising Claims Case Background
Lexmark manufactures printer cartridges and offers replacement services to customers. It developed and sold special toner cartridges to compete with cartridge remanufacturers, which offer competing cartridge replacement services. Lexmark’s cartridges contain a microchip that disables cartridges when they become empty so customers must turn to Lexmark for replacements. Static Control supplies components to cartridge remanufacturers so they can refurbish and resell used Lexmark cartridges. The company furnished remanufacturers with a microchip designed to mimic the disabling microchip in Lexmark cartridges. To prevent the use of Static Control’s microchips, Lexmark warned its customers they were legally bound by the license agreement to return their used cartridges to Lexmark for replacement. Lexmark also sent letters to remanufacturers stating their use of Static Control’s microchips was illegal.
Lower Court Decisions
Lexmark brought suit against Static Control in 2002 alleging violations of the Copyright Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Static Control counterclaimed under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, alleging that Lexmark’s statements to customers and remanufacturers were false and misleading, and that Lexmark’s false statements had diverted sales from Static Control and substantially injured its business reputation by leading consumers and others in the trade to believe that Static Control engaged in illegal conduct.
The district court dismissed Static Control’s Lanham Act counterclaim on the ground the company did not have standing because the injury allegedly suffered as a result of Lexmark’s statements was too remote, and the cartridge remanufacturers, as direct competitors, were more direct plaintiffs. The Sixth Circuit reversed. It held that Static Control had standing to bring the Lanham Act claim because it had alleged a cognizable interest in its business reputation and sales to remanufacturers, and also alleged those interests were harmed by Lexmark’s statements.
Supreme Court’s Decision
In holding that Static Control could sue for false advertising under the Lanham Act, the Court rejected the various divergent tests for standing that the federal courts of appeals had applied. In their place, the Supremes concluded courts should employ “traditional tools of statutory interpretation” to determine whether a federal statutory cause of action encompasses a particular plaintiff’s claim. In the court’s mind the issue was whether Static Control falls within the class of plaintiffs whom Congress authorized to sue under Section 43(a).
The Court held the proper test consists of a two-part inquiry: (1) whether the claim is within the “zone of interests” protected by the Lanham Act, and (2) whether the alleged conduct proximately caused the alleged injury. To meet the former, a plaintiff must plead “an injury to a commercial interest in reputation or sales.” To meet the latter, a plaintiff must plead “economic or reputational injury flowing directly from the deception wrought by the defendant’s advertising” and the deception causes consumers to withhold business from the plaintiff.
Applying the test, the Court concluded Static Control’s claims met the first test because they fell within the “zone of interests” the Lanham Act protects because the alleged injuries (i.e., lost sales and damage to its business reputation) are precisely the sort of commercial interests the Act protects. The Court held that Static Control met the second test because injury in direct competition is not the only type of injury the statute recognizes. The Court reasoned the company met the second requirement by alleging that Lexmark disparaged both its business reputation and its products with statements that their sale was illegal. Static Control further satisfied the proximate causation requirement by alleging it designed, manufactured, and sold microchips that were both necessary for, and had no other use than, refurbishing Lexmark’s cartridges.
Implications of the Decision
The Lexmark case creates a clear national standard to file and maintain a federal false advertising claim. The decision may curb forum shopping in these types of case filed under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. The decision significantly liberalizes the standard to file these types of claim in the Ninth Circuit where all federal false advertising lawsuits filed in California end up on appeal.
Beyond false advertising claims, the Court’s new framework may be applied to determine standing to sue for a whole host of federal statutory torts. The renewed focus on a statute’s purposes and what remedies it authorizes may limit or broaden standing across the federal circuits, including the Ninth Circuit.
.