Law firm sued Central Florida BBB, its president, and the
Council of BBBs for allegedly publishing disparaging statements about the
quality of its services. The court held
that there was no Lanham Act claim because, to be “commercial advertising or
promotion,” a statement must be made by someone in commercial competition with
the plaintiff, and defendants weren’t.
When plaintiff correctly pointed out that the prudential standing test
of Phoenix of Broward etc. supposedly
provides for standing for noncompetitors, the court rejoined that Gordon & Breach’s widely adopted test
for “commercial advertising and promotion” still isn’t satisfied—which is just
another doggone reason that the prudential standing test in most circuits is so
misguided, as I’ve noted before.
Anyhow, with the Lanham Act out of the way, and with no personal jurisdiction over
the Council of BBBs, the court declined to exercise supplmental jurisdiction
over the state-law claims.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment