Intellectual Property Law
New Matter SUMMER 2017 Volume 42, Number 2
Content
- Federal Circuit Report
- Online Cle For Participatory Credit
- Letter from the Chair
- The Licensing Corner
- Ip and Art: An International Perspective
- Copyright Commentary
- Contents
- Letter from the Editor-in-Chief
- The State Bar of California Intellectual Property Alumni
- Intellectual Property Section Interest Group Representatives 2016-2017
- The Band Who Must Not Be Named: Summary of Briefs and Oral Hearing in Lee v. Tam
- 2017 New Matter Author Submission Guidelines
- Case Comments
- Standing Still: Denial of Certiorari in Belmora Llc v. Bayer Consumer Care Ag Leaves Question on Standing for Foreign Plaintiff's Unfair Competition Claims
- Federal Government Expands Public Disclosure Requirements For Clinical Trials: Product Developers Must Publish More Detailed Information, Study Protocols, and the Results of Studies of Unapproved/Unmarketed Products
- Ninth Circuit Report
- Ttab Decisions and Developments
- Intellectual Property Section Executive Committee 2016-2017
Standing Still: Denial of Certiorari in Belmora LLC v. Bayer Consumer Care AG Leaves Question on Standing for Foreign Plaintiff’s Unfair Competition Claims
ANNA RAIMER
Jones Day
MEREDITH WILKES
Jones Day
On February 27, 2017, the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari in Belmora LLC v. Bayer Consumer Care AG.1 The denial of certiorari leaves in place a holding from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that a plaintiff owning only foreign trademark rights has standing to bring unfair competition and false advertising claims against a U.S. trademark owner under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act.2 The Fourth Circuit’s decision relied on the Supreme Court’s standing analysis for Lanham Act false advertising claims in Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.,3 a case involving two U.S.-based companies asserting U.S.-based rights.
In Lexmark, the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff had standing to assert a false advertising claim if the injury alleged is in the "zone of interests" protected by the Lanham Act and the plaintiff otherwise pleaded proximate-cause.4 Using this test, the Fourth Circuit held that a foreign trademark owner’s claims of deceptive conduct and false advertising fell within the zone of interests protected by the Lanham Act, and that the foreign trademark owner sufficiently pleaded proximate causation.5