Notably, Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act focuses on false advertising and unfair competition, providing a legal recourse for individuals and businesses.

[10] This section enables legal action against those engaging in misleading advertising practices that may cause confusion about the origin of goods or services.

A crucial provision within Section 43(a) allows any person who anticipates damage from false advertising to initiate a civil action.

§ 1125(a)) is the "likelihood of confusion" standard for infringement of an unregistered trademark or trade dress, and courts still frequently refer to the provision as "Section 43(a)": 15 U.S.C.

The Act has been held to have extraterritorial impact,[11] and the circuit courts have been giving more favorable interpretations in extending its scope.

[15] In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the law had no impact on public domain works in Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.

§ 1125(a) were ousted by the Court in Lexmark Int'l v. Static Control Components, where Justice Scalia adopted a multi-step approach: In 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co.[21] that the Act complemented the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, allowing a company to sue for infringement by way of civil action.

§ 1052(a) of the Act, denying registration to any trademarks seen as disparaging an individual or group, was an unconstitutional restriction of applicants' freedom of speech.

§ 1052(a) of the Act, denying registration to any trademarks seen as consisting of immoral or scandalous matter, was an unconstitutional restriction of applicants' freedom of speech.