Opinion ID: 508426
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Zenith's Lanham Act Standing

Text: 28 Under Sec. 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1125(a) (1982), [a]ny person who shall ... use in connection with any goods or services ... any false description ... and shall cause such goods or services to enter into commerce, ... shall be liable to a civil action by any person ... who believes that he is or is likely to be damaged by the use of any such false description or representation. Although the statute is intended to be broadly construed, see, e.g., PPX Enters. v. Audiofidelity, Inc., 746 F.2d 120, 124 (2d Cir.1984), a plaintiff must allege more than mere subjective belief about damages; [w]hat matters is whether a commercial party has a 'reasonable interest to be protected' against the alleged false advertising. Id. at 125. 29 For essentially the same reasons that lead us to disagree with the magistrate's decision that Zenith lacked antitrust standing, we disagree with her ruling that appellants lack standing to assert their Lanham Act claim. The magistrate concluded that her discussion of standing under the antitrust laws [was] equally applicable to the issue of Lanham Act standing, because appellants had no reasonable interest to be protected under either the Clayton or Lanham Acts. For the reasons stated above, however, we conclude that appellants' alleged interest in benefiting from sales of generic propranolol is a legally protectible interest, even though appellants had no legal right to market their product for post-MI treatment. We therefore hold that appellants have standing under the Lanham Act, and we turn now to consider whether appellants have alleged sufficient facts in support of their claims.