Last year, in Lexmark Int’l v. Static Control Components,1 the U.S. Supreme Court used a Lanham Act false advertising case to overhaul the prudential standing doctrine. Resolving a variety of competing circuit views, Lexmark set forth a straightforward two-prong test for plaintiffs to bring a false advertising case. In the time since Lexmark was decided, Lanham Act jurisprudence has developed in some interesting ways, and this article surveys some illustrative decisions.
‘Lexmark’
Lexmark was a dispute between indirect competitors: the eponymous printer manufacturer and Static Control Components, the manufacturer of a microchip enabling third-party “remanufacturers” to refurbish Lexmark toner cartridges. Lexmark concerned Static Control’s Lanham Act false advertising counterclaim, which challenged statements made by Lexmark to its consumers (concerning the legality of selling their used cartridges to third-party remanufacturers) and to remanufacturers (asserting “that it was illegal to use Static Control’s products to refurbish those cartridges”).2
