AND · 15usc1125:commercial-injury
Lexmark’s zone-of-interests inquiry limits the statutory cause of action. A business suing only as a disappointed purchaser is like an ordinary consumer; commercial loss must fit the protected interest.
Exact element source
shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.Source:
docroot/ir/usc/title15.jsonl#title15_sec1125; Unicode character offsets [870:988] (end exclusive); SHA-256 0a5680239d11ae3247a99abab2344db45177346d2d2e3050e95c82fb39f3aca7.Routes and case patterns
| Route | Definition | Merits instance blocks | Distinct merits cases | Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| _whole accepted; 2 observed cases | The element is decided as a whole: the reasoning turns on no narrower doctrinal sub-question that distinguishes it from any other application of this element. | 2 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 2 | Reed v. Marshall — 142 F.4th 338 (2025) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2025 — not · no-evidence (15usc1125: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. — 572 U.S. 118 (2014) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2014 — satisfied · pleaded (15usc1125: author: Astra2 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md)) · applied/merits · counted |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reed v. Marshall — 142 F.4th 338 (2025) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2025 — not · no-evidence (15usc1125: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Judicial zone-of-interests limit to commercial injury | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence; claim: (a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(B); party: Joi Marshall and Tonya Harris (co-owners of the JADE mark) and Myracle Holloway (their licensee); count: false advertising, § 1125(a)(1)(B); subject: party=Joi Marshall and Tonya Harris (co-owners of the JADE mark) and Myracle Holloway (their licensee); count=false advertising, § 1125(a)(1)(B) Lexmark zone-of-interests injury must be shown by evidence at summary judgment. The court also relies on the co-ownership point (use was authorised) and notes the promoters who made the advertisements are not parties. | co-owner claiming lost opportunities and reputation from fellow co-owners' performances under the shared mark, no record evidence of lost sales or reputation | Reed’s best allegation is that in marketing materials for the 2024 “R&B Block Party” concert, the event’s promoters created social media posts that included a Jade song that featured Reed’s voice.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/338; Unicode character offsets [31831:32027] (end exclusive); SHA-256 fe6819c0fcfbdd5d12056879344eac0e9c698c46678782b1d96ba8d63ad9cf9f.And evidence of any “injury to a commercial interest in reputation or sales” is lacking from the record.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/338; Unicode character offsets [31700:31804] (end exclusive); SHA-256 fe6819c0fcfbdd5d12056879344eac0e9c698c46678782b1d96ba8d63ad9cf9f.Notwithstanding the lack of evidence to support these theories, the defendants’ co-ownership of the JADE mark does not exclude Reed from using the mark as she pleases.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/338; Unicode character offsets [32655:32822] (end exclusive); SHA-256 fe6819c0fcfbdd5d12056879344eac0e9c698c46678782b1d96ba8d63ad9cf9f.Said otherwise, while allegations of injury are sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss, evidence of injury is required to survive a motion for summary judgment.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/338; Unicode character offsets [31534:31699] (end exclusive); SHA-256 fe6819c0fcfbdd5d12056879344eac0e9c698c46678782b1d96ba8d63ad9cf9f.Reed has accordingly not evidenced the injury necessary to sustain her false advertising claim.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/338; Unicode character offsets [33166:33261] (end exclusive); SHA-256 fe6819c0fcfbdd5d12056879344eac0e9c698c46678782b1d96ba8d63ad9cf9f. |
| Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. — 572 U.S. 118 (2014) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2014 — satisfied · pleaded (15usc1125: author: Astra2 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md)) | Judicial zone-of-interests limit to commercial injury | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; party: Static Control; subject: party=Static Control Statutory protected commercial interest is adequately alleged; the holding does not establish damages or success on all advertising elements. | zone-of-interests/reputation-and-sales | We thus hold that to come within the zone of interests in a suit for false advertising under § 1125(a), a plaintiff must allege an injury to a commercial interest in reputation or sales.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_572.jsonl#/us/572/0118-01; Unicode character offsets [19861:20047] (end exclusive); SHA-256 925bbd2e7ac80af005ca0208b672687190e36af5f681de2bd2a157b522bc7810.It further maintained that Lexmark's misrepresentations had "proximately caused and [we]re likely to cause injury to [Static Control] by diverting sales from [Static Control] to Lexmark," and had "substantially injured [its] business reputation" by "leading consumers and others in the trade to believe that [Static Control] is engaged in illegal conduct."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_572.jsonl#/us/572/0118-01; Unicode character offsets [4895:5251] (end exclusive); SHA-256 925bbd2e7ac80af005ca0208b672687190e36af5f681de2bd2a157b522bc7810.To begin, Static Control's alleged injuries-lost sales and damage to its business reputation-are injuries to precisely the sorts of commercial interests the Act protects.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_572.jsonl#/us/572/0118-01; Unicode character offsets [30878:31048] (end exclusive); SHA-256 925bbd2e7ac80af005ca0208b672687190e36af5f681de2bd2a157b522bc7810. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
We thus hold that to come within the zone of interests in a suit for false advertising under § 1125(a), a plaintiff must allege an injury to a commercial interest in reputation or sales.
Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. — 572 U.S. 118 (2014) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2014 (15usc1125: author: Astra2 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md))
We thus hold that to come within the zone of interests in a suit for false advertising under § 1125(a), a plaintiff must allege an injury to a commercial interest in reputation or sales.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_572.jsonl#/us/572/0118-01; Unicode character offsets [19861:20047] (end exclusive); SHA-256 925bbd2e7ac80af005ca0208b672687190e36af5f681de2bd2a157b522bc7810.Lexmark’s zone-of-interests inquiry limits the statutory cause of action. A business suing only as a disappointed purchaser is like an ordinary consumer; commercial loss must fit the protected interest.
not-required
Direct competition between plaintiff and defendant.
No source quotation recorded.