Opinion ID: 765770
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Unfair Competition and Deceptive Advertising

Text: 39 The plaintiff also contends that the district court erred in dismissing its unfair competition and deceptive advertising claims due to the plaintiff's lack of standing. Specifically, the plaintiff contends that in seeking to prevent Blastoff from using the St. Louis Rams mark, the defendants marketed football paraphernalia with notices attached which stated that the Rams mark was registered with the PTO, and this somehow amounted to deceptive advertising. 40 In determining that Blastoff lacked standing, the district court ruled that under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. sec. 1125, which governs unfair competition and false advertising claims, a party must demonstrate that it has a reasonable interest to be protected against conduct violating the Act. Dovenmuehle v. Gilldorn Mortgage Midwest Corp., 871 F.2d 697, 700 (7th Cir. 1989). A party bringing suit must assert a discernable competitive injury. L.S. Heath & Son, Inc. v. AT&T Info. Sys. Inc., 9 F.3d 561, 575 (7th Cir. 1993). 41 In our consideration of prior protectable rights, we determined that the NFL has established superior rights to the St. Louis Rams mark. As such, under the common law, Blastoff, which has never been part of the NFL in any manner, shape, or form, is precluded from using the St. Louis Rams mark, and Blastoff therefore has neither a reasonable interest in a right to be protected by bringing suit, see Dovenmuehle, 871 F.2d at 700, nor can Blastoff assert a discernable competitive injury in a right. See L.S. Heath & Son, 9 F.3d at 575. Therefore, we agree with the district court's determination that Blastoff lacked standing to bring suit under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act.