Legal Opinion
Phoenix of Broward, Inc. v. McDonald's Corp.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Decided June 22, 2007No. 06-14726PublishedCited by 27 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
KRAVITCH, Circuit Judge:
The primary issue in this appeal is the proper test for determining whether a party has prudential standing to bring a false advertising claim under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). Phoenix of Broward, Inc. (“Phoenix”) appeals the district court’s dismissal of its false advertising claim against McDonald’s Corporation (“McDonald’s”) for lack of prudential standing. For the reasons that follow, we adopt the test for prudential standing set forth in Conte Bros. Automotive, Inc. v. Quaker State-Slick 50, Inc., 165 F.3d 221, 225 (3d Cir.1998), and affirm the…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better EnvironmentSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Bennett v. SpearSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of CarpentersSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Bender v. Williamsport Area School DistrictSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2014
- Harold H. Huggins Realty, Inc. v. FNC, INC.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2011
- Famous Horse Inc. v. 5th Ave. Photo Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2010
- Duty Free Americas, Inc. v. The Estee Lauder Companies, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2015
- Federal Treasury Enterprise Sojuzplodoimport v. SPI Spirits Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2013
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.