Legal Opinion
Conte Bros. Automotive, Inc. v. Quaker State-Slick 50, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided December 30, 1998No. 98-5136UnknownCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
ALITO, Circuit Judge:
The issue in this appeal is whether retailers have standing under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (1994), to bring false advertising claims against manufacturers of products that compete with those the retailers sell. The District Court answered this question in the negative and dismissed the Complaint. Conte Bros. Automotive, Inc. v. Quaker State-Slick 50, Inc., 992 F.Supp. 709, 711 (D.N.J.1998). Based on the facts alleged in the Complaint, we conclude that the retailer plaintiffs do not satisfy the prudential standing requirements…
2Cases cited36 opinions
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Warth v. SeldinSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better EnvironmentSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Bennett v. SpearSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. CampSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- No. 98-5136Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1998
- Alson Alston v. CubeSmart, et al.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2026
- National Labor Relations Board v. GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDSDistrict Court, Virgin Islands · 2021
- Rebecca Curtin v. United Trademark Holdings, Inc., Trademark Trial and Appeal Board2023