The Lanham Act provides a Federal cause of action for unfair competition. It is inapplicable to this case and, at any rate, the first amendment is a defense to this provision. I think the NY Times Standard would save the NY Times yet again. Moreover, although the Lanham Act states "anyone" most courts have held that not just anyone has a cause of action, i.e. only competitors who are injured have a cause of action under Section 43(a)
Professor Platt, is that you???
The Lanham Act provides a Federal cause of action for unfair competition. It is inapplicable to this case and, at any rate, the first amendment is a defense to this provision. I think the NY Times Standard would save the NY Times yet again. Moreover, although the Lanham Act states "anyone" most courts have held that not just anyone has a cause of action, i.e. only competitors who are injured have a cause of action under Section 43(a)
While the first amendment may be a defense, I think the staus is that there shall be no prior rrestraint and that the press is still liable for any wrongdoing after they publish or broadcast...libel and slander are clear examples...maybe the actors could sue the Globe...LOL...then again maybe the actors would be covered under NYTimes v Sullivan as public figures...I do believe the Globe was negligent in not properly sourcing the photos and that the pics were already suspect prior to publication...