AND · 15usc1125:proximate-cause
Direct injury is not synonymous with direct competition. Merely derivative landlord/supplier losses normally fail; Lexmark discusses the particular close causal linkage alleged by Static Control, not universal recovery for every upstream supplier.
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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| direct-reputational-injury provisional; provisional (1 case) | Whether disparagement of the plaintiff's own product or business directly injures it. | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | 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 |
| linked-sales provisional; provisional (1 case) | Whether the plaintiff's lost sales follow automatically from the deception even though a third party is the direct target. | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 proximate-causation requirement | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; party: Static Control; theory: Disparagement of its business as illegal; subject: party=Static Control; theory=Disparagement of its business as illegal This is the first independent pleaded causal route: commercial disparagement injures a supplier directly even without direct competition. | disparaged-component-supplier | The District Court emphasized that Lexmark and Static Control are not direct competitors. But when a party claims reputational injury from disparagement, competition is not required for proximate cause; and that is true even if the defendant's aim was to harm its immediate competitors, and the plaintiff merely suffered collateral damage.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_572.jsonl#/us/572/0118-01; Unicode character offsets [33497:33836] (end exclusive); SHA-256 925bbd2e7ac80af005ca0208b672687190e36af5f681de2bd2a157b522bc7810.First, Static Control alleged that Lexmark disparaged its business and products by asserting that Static Control's business was illegal.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_572.jsonl#/us/572/0118-01; Unicode character offsets [32060:32196] (end exclusive); SHA-256 925bbd2e7ac80af005ca0208b672687190e36af5f681de2bd2a157b522bc7810.For at least two reasons, Static Control's allegations satisfy the requirement of proximate causation.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_572.jsonl#/us/572/0118-01; Unicode character offsets [31957:32059] (end exclusive); SHA-256 925bbd2e7ac80af005ca0208b672687190e36af5f681de2bd2a157b522bc7810. |
| 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 proximate-causation requirement | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; party: Static Control; theory: Near one-to-one necessary-component sales linkage; subject: party=Static Control; theory=Near one-to-one necessary-component sales linkage Second pleaded causal route; the unusually close sales relationship defeats remoteness. Ordinary derivative supplier losses do not automatically satisfy this test. | one-chip-per-cartridge | We thus hold that a plaintiff suing under § 1125(a) ordinarily must show economic or reputational injury flowing directly from the deception wrought by the defendant's advertising; and that that occurs when deception of consumers causes them to withhold trade from the plaintiff.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_572.jsonl#/us/572/0118-01; Unicode character offsets [24018:24297] (end exclusive); SHA-256 925bbd2e7ac80af005ca0208b672687190e36af5f681de2bd2a157b522bc7810.In addition, Static Control adequately alleged proximate causation by alleging that it designed, manufactured, and sold microchips that both (1) were necessary for, and (2) had no other use than, refurbishing Lexmark toner cartridges.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_572.jsonl#/us/572/0118-01; Unicode character offsets [34388:34622] (end exclusive); SHA-256 925bbd2e7ac80af005ca0208b672687190e36af5f681de2bd2a157b522bc7810.In these relatively unique circumstances, the remanufacturers are not "more immediate victim[s]" than Static Control.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_572.jsonl#/us/572/0118-01; Unicode character offsets [36541:36658] (end exclusive); SHA-256 925bbd2e7ac80af005ca0208b672687190e36af5f681de2bd2a157b522bc7810. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
We thus hold that a plaintiff suing under § 1125(a) ordinarily must show economic or reputational injury flowing directly from the deception wrought by the defendant's advertising; and that that occurs when deception of consumers causes them to withhold trade from the plaintiff.
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 a plaintiff suing under § 1125(a) ordinarily must show economic or reputational injury flowing directly from the deception wrought by the defendant's advertising; and that that occurs when deception of consumers causes them to withhold trade from the plaintiff.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_572.jsonl#/us/572/0118-01; Unicode character offsets [24018:24297] (end exclusive); SHA-256 925bbd2e7ac80af005ca0208b672687190e36af5f681de2bd2a157b522bc7810.Direct injury is not synonymous with direct competition. Merely derivative landlord/supplier losses normally fail; Lexmark discusses the particular close causal linkage alleged by Static Control, not universal recovery for every upstream supplier.
interpretation
The District Court emphasized that Lexmark and Static Control are not direct competitors. But when a party claims reputational injury from disparagement, competition is not required for proximate cause; and that is true even if the defendant's aim was to harm its immediate competitors, and the plaintiff merely suffered collateral damage.
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))
The District Court emphasized that Lexmark and Static Control are not direct competitors. But when a party claims reputational injury from disparagement, competition is not required for proximate cause; and that is true even if the defendant's aim was to harm its immediate competitors, and the plaintiff merely suffered collateral damage.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_572.jsonl#/us/572/0118-01; Unicode character offsets [33497:33836] (end exclusive); SHA-256 925bbd2e7ac80af005ca0208b672687190e36af5f681de2bd2a157b522bc7810.Direct injury is not synonymous with direct competition. Merely derivative landlord/supplier losses normally fail; Lexmark discusses the particular close causal linkage alleged by Static Control, not universal recovery for every upstream supplier.