observing that “the provisions of the [FTCA] may be enforced only by the Federal Trade Commission[,]” and that “[n]owhere does the [FTCA] bestow upon either competitors or consumers standing to enforce its provisions”
How later courts described this case
- observing that “the provisions of the [FTCA] may be enforced only by the Federal Trade Commission[,]” and that “[n]owhere does the [FTCA] bestow upon either competitors or consumers standing to enforce its provisions”
- rejecting attempt to shoehorn a Lanham Act claim from allegations of selling tobacco “without taking effective steps to warn their customers that the tobacco had been subjected to possible water damage”
- finding that defendant’s failure to disclose that tobacco was water damaged did not state a claim under the Lanham Act
- finding no actionable Lanham Act claim where Defendant failed to warn that product was water damaged
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*239 ROBERT P. ANDERSON, Circuit Judge
(concurring in the result):
I concur in the result.
Had the rejected and damaged tins been acquired by the seller from an independent third-party, it seems to me that Dunhill would be entitled to seek relief under the Lanham Act against such a vendor for selling a tin of tobacco with Dunhill’s label on it under circumstances in which it would be reasonable for the purchaser to assume that he was getting Dunhill’s standard quality tobacco.