United States Eleventh Circuit

In a false advertising suit by one fast-food company against another, dismissal of the case for lack of prudential standing is affirmed where: 1) Congress did not intend to abrogate prudential standing limitations when it enacted the Lanham Act; 2) to determine whether a plaintiff has prudential standing to bring a false advertising claim under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, a court must consider and weigh the five factors articulated in Conte Bros. Automotive, Inc. v. Quaker State-Slick 50, Inc., 165 F.3d 221, 225 (3d Cir. 1998); and 3) plaintiff did not satisfy the requirements of prudential standing under the Conte Bros.

Appellate Information

• Decided 06/22/2007
• Published 06/22/2007

Judges

• KRAVITCH, Circuit Judge:, Before PRYOR, KRAVITCH and ALARCÓN, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Eleventh Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Marc J. Zucker, Weir & Partners, LLP, Philadelphia, PA, William P. Eiselstein, Miller & Martin, PLLC, Atlanta, GA, Charna E. Sherman, Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, L.L.P., Cleveland, OH, Pierre H. Bergeron, Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, L.L.P., Cincinnati, OH, for Plaintiff-Appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• George C. Lombardi, David J. Doyle, Winston & Strawn, LLP, Chicago, IL, Donald A. Loft, Ross A. Albert, Morris, Manning & Martin, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellee.