Secondary trademark liability and false advertising

The only book you need on secondary trademark liability; the only book there is

This year’s supplement features the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Duty Free Americas, Inc. v. Estee Lauder Cos. (DFA)^[1], another in a growing body of cases to extend contributory liability doctrine beyond the traditional trademark infringement context. In the years since the Supreme Court decided Inwood Labs.^[2], courts have generally been predisposed to consider, if not formally recognize, contributory claims across the spectrum of Lanham Act violations.^[3] Their basic reasoning has been that all trademark-based claims lend themselves to contributory causes of action because they derive from common-law torts of unfair competition.^[4] In DFA, the court expanded on that reasoning when it recognized a claim for contributory false advertising,^[5]concluding that the rationale supporting contributory liability in the trademark infringement context applies with even more force to false advertising.^[6] Continue reading Contributory False Advertising ?