Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act provides a federal vehicle for asserting unfair competition claims against confusing and deceptive advertising practices. Any person who violates Section 43(a) “shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.”1 If read literally, the provision would grant standing to virtually any plaintiff alleging a false advertising claim, but courts have employed the doctrine of prudential standing to limit the scope of plaintiffs that may assert a Lanham Act false advertising claim.2
This article highlights a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decision, Famous Horse Inc. v. 5th Avenue Photo Inc.,3 which revisited and reaffirmed the validity of the court’s reasonable interest test to determine whether a plaintiff has standing to assert a false advertising claim under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act and declined to adopt other tests currently employed by other circuit courts.
‘Famous Horse Inc.’
